Regent Forum

2004-12-15T13:22:00.000-05:00

Peace on earth requires more than a cessation of hostilities. Real peace (with God and man) begins by acknowledging what's true and repenting of our waywardness.

In a perfect world, that's the way things would operate. But for the duplicitous and unrepentant, sometimes we need to apply a little coaxing in the form of -- indictment and conviction. For a case in point, this month we focus on the world's chief diplomatic body, the UN, where their motto suggests we're "united for a better world" -- but their methods involve graft and corruption.

Next, and not to be outdone by other ambitious challenges, we consider a refreshing new idea for resolving the intractable problems between Israelis and Palestinians -- with a roadmap to peace that takes a different approach. Here, we may have finally proferred a solution that appeases both heaven and earth.

And finally, we consider the unrelenting assault upon America's Christian heritage each Christmas. With parity and multiculturalism the goal, everyone is welcome but the Christ child.

But don't be discouraged by the absurdity of it all...These bizarre arrangements will soon give way to the Prince of Peace. And "of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end." (Isa 9:7)

Roy Tanner

Come Clean, Kofi
The U.N. secretary-general ducks responsibility on Oil for Food scam.

BY CLAUDIA ROSETT

With estimates soaring of graft and fraud under the United Nations Oil for Food program in Iraq, we are hearing a lot about the need to "get to the bottom" of this scandal, the biggest ever to hit the U.N. To get to that bottom will need a much harder look at the top--where Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself resides.

That violates all sorts of taboos. But so, one might suppose, does a United Nations that allowed Saddam Hussein to embezzle at least $21.3 billion in oil money during 12 years, with the great bulk of that sum--a staggering $17.3 billion--pilfered between 1997-2003, on Mr. Annan's watch.

These are the record-breaking new estimates released Monday by the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, whose staffers, despite Mr. Annan's refusal to cooperate, have spent the past seven months voyaging deep into the muck of Oil for Food. At a hearing Monday, these investigators surfaced to tell us the theft and fraud under Oil for Food was at least twice as bad as earlier reports had suggested, and that all this is just a preview of yet more appalling disclosures they expect to release early next year. Sen. Norm Coleman, the subcommittee's chairman, underscored the urgency of such investigations, noting not only that the size of the fraud "is staggering," but that some of Saddam's vast illicit stash might right now be funding terrorists and costing American lives.

Mr. Annan, by contrast, seems to inhabit a different universe--one in which the chief problem lies not in the U.N.'s complicity, including his own, in the biggest fraud in the history of humanitarian relief, but rather in the attempts to shine any light on all that sleaze. In Annan Land, there was earlier this year no need for any probe into Oil for Food; and even now there is no need for any investigating beyond the U.N.'s own "independent inquiry" into itself, led by former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, required to funnel its findings first through Mr. Annan, funded to the tune of $30 million out of one of the old Oil for Food accounts it is supposed to be investigating, and not planning to clock in with any specific results until sometime next summer.

In the spirit of shooting the messenger, Mr. Annan has complained often in recent months about criticism of Oil for Food, denouncing it as a "campaign" that has "hurt the U.N." Monday's Oil for Food hearing evoked from Mr. Annan's spokesman, Fred Eckhard, the comment that Mr. Annan feels he has been "misjudged by certain media" and that Mr. Annan is "not being obstructionist" in his refusal to cooperate with congressional investigators. We are given to understand that Mr. Annan would help if he could, but his job entails so many over-riding responsibilities.

OK, except that when it comes to Oil for Food, Mr. Annan has labored hard in recent months to disavow his own large role and responsibilities. From both Mr. Annan and the entourage of U.N. speechwriters and spokesman who report to him have come a long series of disclaimers and protests, eye-catching less for what they tell us than for what they leave out.

Just last week, we had Mr. Annan's director of communications, Edward Mortimer, asserting in a letter to The Wall Street Journal that Mr. Annan was "not involved" in designing Oil for Food. Technically, it may be correct that Mr. Annan did not actually seal the original deal. But Mr. Annan's own official U.N. biography states that before becoming secretary-general, he "led the first United Nations team negotiating with Iraq on the sale of oil to fund purchases of humanitarian aid"--and that implies a certain familiarity with the origins of Oil for Food.

Once Mr. Annan became secretary-general, he lost little time in getting deeply involved with Oil for Food. In October 1997, just 10 months into the job, he transformed what had begun as an ad hoc, temporary relief measure into the Office of the Iraq Program, an entrenched U.N. department, which reported to him directly--and was eliminated only after the U.S.-led coalition, against Mr. Annan's wishes, deposed Saddam. To run Oil for Food, Mr. Annan picked Benon Sevan (now alleged to have received oil money from Saddam, which he denies) and kept him there until the program ended about six years later.

Mr. Annan's reorganization of Oil for Food meant a nontrivial change in the trajectory of the program. All the signs are that Saddam immediately took the cue that he could now start gaming the program with impunity--and Mr. Annan did not prove him wrong. Within the month, Saddam had created the first crisis over the U.N. weapons inspectors, who were supposed to be part of the sanctions and Oil for Food package. Mr. Annan's response was not to throttle back on Oil for Food but to go before the Security Council a few months later and urge that Baghdad be allowed to import oil equipment along with the food and medicine to which the program had been initially limited. This set the stage for the ensuing burst in Saddam's oil production, kickbacks, surcharges and smuggling.

Mr. Annan then flew to Baghdad for a private powwow with Saddam and returned to declare that this was a man he could do business with. The weapons inspectors returned to Iraq for a short spell, but by the end of 1998, Saddam had evicted them for the next four years. Mr. Annan, however, went right on doing business. And big business it was, however humanitarian in name. Under the Oil for Food deal, Mr. Annan's Secretariat pulled in a 2.2% commission on Saddam's oil sales, totaling a whopping $1.4 billion over the life of the program, to cover the costs of supervising Saddam. Yet somehow the Secretariat never found the funding to fully meter oil shipments, ensure full inspections of all goods entering Iraq, or catch the pricing scams that by the new estimates of Senate investigators let Saddam rake in $4.4 billion in kickbacks on relief contracts.

Mr. Annan and his aides would also have us believe that Oil for Food had nothing to do with Saddam's smuggling of oil--which generated the lion's share of his illicit income. But it was only after Oil for Food geared up that Saddam's oil smuggling really took off, totaling $13.6 billion during his entire 12 years between wars, but with more than two-thirds of that--an estimated $9.7 billion--earned during the era of Oil for Food. Those were precisely the years in which Mr. Annan repeatedly went to bat to enable Saddam, under Oil for Food, to import the equipment to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure, whence came all that smuggled oil.

Transparency from the start might have flagged the world and stopped the scams as things turned deeply rotten under Oil for Food. But Mr. Annan's policy to this day has been secrecy. On Monday, Sen. Coleman summed up his subcommittee's efforts to get at the truth, as having required so far, eight subpoenas, 13 chairman's letters, "numerous interviews with key participants, and receipt of over a million pages of evidence" to begin to understand "the behind-the-scenes machinations of the participants in the Oil for Food program."

"Participants" are generally understood to have been Saddam's chosen contractors. But we need to recognize that one of the biggest of those contractors was, in effect, the U.N. itself. As Oil for Food was not only designed but expanded, embellished upon and run for more than six years under Mr. Annan's stewardship, it became not so much a supervisory operation, but a business deal with Saddam, in which the U.N. in effect provided money laundering services, the Secretariat collected a percentage fee from Saddam--and somewhere in there, between the kickbacks, surcharges, importation of oil equipment and smuggling out of oil, they jointly ran a storefront relief operation.

Who at the U.N. took illicit money from Saddam--if, indeed, anyone did--is an important question, and worth pursuing. But so is the matter of who covered up for Saddam; who pushed to continue and expand a program so derelict that it failed to nab more than $17 billion in illicit deals, and so secretive that investigators have spent much of the past year trying simply to get their hands on information the U.N. should have made public at the time. It is worth asking whose welfare was enhanced, whose domain was expanded, whose coffers filled with $1.4 billion delivered as a percentage cut of Saddam's oil revenues--and who has failed to this day to take on board the thumping lessons about the need for transparency at the U.N.

That would be Mr. Annan. He is not protecting the U.N. At great cost to whatever noble aspirations the U.N. once had, and to all societies that value integrity over Potemkin institutions, he is protecting himself.

Ms. Rosett is a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson Institute. Her column appears here and in The Wall Street Journal Europe on alternate Wednesdays.

Radical new plan for Mideast peace
Israeli movement builds for Arab population transfer

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

There's a new peace plan gaining support in Israel that has nothing to do with making land concessions to Arabs, negotiations with Yasser Arafat, extending the Oslo Accords or creating a new Palestinian state.

Instead, the seven-point Elon Peace Plan represents a radical departure in Israeli thinking over the last 12 years.

Named for Benny Elon, the relatively small Moledet Party's leader and a member of the Knesset, the new peace plan calls for transferring Arabs from the West Bank and other areas to what Elon calls the "existing state of Palestine" – the nation of Jordan.

Polls show between 20 and 30 percent of Israelis ready to back such a plan.

In an exclusive interview with WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah, Elon said such a population transfer is not unusual in modern world history, nor is it immoral to contemplate.

"The solution is moral for both Jews, who have no other homeland, for the Palestinians, who have lost the most in the past wars – their homes were damaged and they became refugees," he said. "The world has now reached the understanding that there is no peace in bi-national countries, and that there is an urgent need for separation."

Elon points out that not one Arab leader has agreed to the most far-reaching Israeli offers for a peace agreement – even one carving up Jerusalem and placing part of it in the hands of the Palestinians.

"The state of Israel must demand the relocation of the refugees as a precondition of peace within any future negotiations," said Elon. "We cannot relinquish these lands, and we cannot live peacefully with the Arab population currently living in them. And we cannot succumb to the current, politically correct 'solution' – the creation of an Arab terrorist state, bent on our ultimate destruction and willing to sacrifice its children toward this end."

The seven-point Elon plan calls for:

1) Jerusalem's recognition that Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority, established under the lengthy peace process begin in Oslo in 1993, is the enemy of Israel.

2) The forcible removal of all terrorists and all weapons from the West Bank – or Judea and Samaria, as these lands are called by many in Israel.

3) The nullification of the Palestinian Authority as a legitimate entity and the canceling of the Oslo Accords.

4) The establishment of a cease-fire and negotiations under international auspices to relocate refugees in Arab countries and the dismantling of refugee camps, along with the establishment of a Jordan-Palestinian state with Amman as its capital.

5) Arabs who remain in Judea and Samaria would be offered citizenship in the Jordanian-Palestinian state.

6) Arab citizens of Israel also would be offered such status.

7) If the Arabs of Judea and Samaria breach the terms of the agreement, they would be forcibly deported to the other side of the Jordan River.

Elon is the political successor of late tourism minister Rehavam Zeevi, who was assassinated last year by Palestinian gunmen. He had launched his political career by advocating the voluntary transfer of Arabs to neighboring states.

"The high expectations of Oslo became deep disappointment," explained Elon. "Instead of peace, there has been so much bloodshed. When you look at it, transfer is the only conclusion. It is the only light at the end of the tunnel."

The population of Jordan, Elon points out, is currently comprised of 70 percent Palestinians. That is why he calls it the existing Palestinian state.

"The king of Jordan is well aware of the fact that Arafat is only waiting for the right moment [to make his land claim there]," said Elon. "... After he receives a small state west of the Jordan River, he will do all he can to connect it, under his rulership, to the Palestinian state called Jordan."

Population transfers have occurred repeatedly in modern history – often with success since World War II, Elon and his supporters point out. It is often overlooked and forgotten, they say, that some 850,000 Jewish refugees fled Arab lands since the creation of the new state of Israel in 1948. These refugees, as well as millions from other parts of the world, have been successfully absorbed in the tiny Jewish state, no larger than the state of New Jersey.

In fact, they say, of the 100 million refugees created since World War II, the only group still not resettled is the Palestinian refugee group.

"Instead, these unfortunate people became pawns in the hands of their own Arab leadership," said Elon.
Elon and his party will make a big public relations push on their peace plan in the coming months – both in Israel and in the United States.

The impending death of Christmas?

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

The spiritual Grinches in our nation are accelerating their war against Christmas as never before. And they are tragically convincing growing numbers of our fellow citizens – primarily those in our nation's public schools and public administration – that Christmas should be publicly shunned, replaced by nebulous substitutes designed to avoid offending those who are all-so-easily outraged.

But adherents of this colossal effort to create a secular utopia have forgotten two significant realities:

Our founders were men who explicitly embraced Judeo-Christian principles in the founding of this nation. Even those who were Deists openly recognized the need for the citizenry to fall to their collective knees and beseech God's favor. They understood the need to recognize God in our Constitution, in our courts and in our schools.
Our fellow citizens do not want a spiritual sanitization effort to sweep out all vestiges of Christianity from the public square. One need look no further than an AOL poll this week. An astounding 89 percent of respondents (as of Wednesday afternoon) answered in the affirmative to the question, "Should religion be included in public holiday celebrations?"

The so-called mainstream media often portray radical secularists as reasonable individuals, but the people at the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and other such groups are practitioners of an extremist movement that would completely outlaw God, Christianity and any remnant of such from the public arena.

And they are, in many cases, winning this war.

That's why this week the student members of the Columbia High School brass ensemble in Maplewood, N.J., were told they could not play any Christmas-related songs – not even instrumental versions. (We wouldn't want some student or parent to get offended by a wordless tune, would we?)

This is the milieu of outright censorship that many students face today. Their teachers and administrators have become convinced (primarily through fear campaigns by leftist groups) that even the most blurred mention of Christmas would be an outright constitutional offense.

They are wrong. Disastrously wrong!

Other anti-Christmas strategies have gained headlines recently:

TARGET will not allow the Salvation Army to collect funds at their stores, meaning that the Army will lost about $9 million this year;
Macy's and Bloomingdale's have prohibited the phrase "Merry Christmas";
Denver's "Parade of Lights," which has outlawed religious expression, is now considering allowing a Christian group to participate in the event;
New York Mayor David Bloomberg now refers to the giant Christmas tree in the city as a holiday tree.

Other examples abound as a few Americans attempt to oust Christmas from the public vernacular. Leaders of religious freedom-based legal groups around the country tell me that during this time of year they see a hefty incursion of anti-religious expression cases.

One of those organizations is the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel (which now has a divisional office on the Liberty University campus), which is involved in hundreds of cases each year wherein attorneys protect the rights of Americans to express their faith.

Christmas remains legal

Mathew Staver, founder and general counsel at Liberty Counsel, says that that publicly sponsored Nativity scenes on public property are, in fact, constitutional as long the display includes a secular symbol. The government may publicly exhibit depictions of Mary, Joseph and Jesus or a Menorah if such scenes incorporates the image of Santa Claus or Frosty the Snowman.

In addition, public-school students may sing Christian Christmas carols such as "Silent Night" as long as they also sing secular songs, such as "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer."

Furthermore, schools may not prohibit access to religious books, because to do so discriminates against the religious viewpoint of the message contained in the book. Public employers may not discriminate against staff by prohibiting Christmas celebration.

Mr. Staver also says that privately sponsored nativity scenes erected and displayed by citizens or groups in a public area are constitutional and require no secular symbols to be included.

"This nation was founded by people who sought to freely exercise their religious liberties," Mr. Staver said. "We have no intention of letting these liberties fall by the wayside or be chilled every holiday season by uninformed or hostile government officials."

Mr. Staver tells me that all 600 of his attorneys are available to provide free legal aid to students or employees around the nation who face religious discrimination. Visit the organization's website for more information on Liberty Counsel.

Other similar religious-freedom legal groups are actively working to protect Americans' rights to express their faith. The task is daunting because leftist organizations are aggressively attempting to redefine America in their own Godless image. They seek a national mandate.

While I celebrate the fact that men like Mat Staver and others are standing up for American values, it is imperative that parents and grandparents ensure that their children understand the Judeo-Christian ancestry that is undeniable. We must also make certain that our children's schools are not gagging their rights to live out their faith in the classroom.

The effort to preserve our religious heritage and future requires the diligence of us all. May we, through God's grace, faithfully safeguard the wonderful Christian birthright of America.

Rev. Jerry Falwell, a nationally recognized Christian minister and television show host, is the founder of Jerry Falwell Ministries and is chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.

2004-11-16T01:26:00.000-05:00

What do you get when you combine an unrelenting erosion of decency, an obstructionist minority and an activist judiciary -- in an election year?... A populist revolt by the "moral majority" that's tantamount to a second reformation.

While no single event set this in motion, everything from suggestive primetime programming and shock-jocks who push the on-air limits, to defiant city mayors and activist judges that impose their will on the majority -- have combined to create a conservative reawakening of sorts.

Like the sleeping giant in Gulliver's Travels, slumbering "values voters" seem to have shaken-off their fog and spoken-up in a united fashion this year on everything from defense of marriage to demand for movie performances like the Passion of Christ. What's especially troubling for the Left, is the bond that's forming between previously factious people of faith.

Sensing a widespread assault on traditional American values -- the values that history attributes to our greatness as a nation, people of faith have combined to achieve "critical mass" as a voting block. As seen in this year's campaigns, the 2004 election really pitted those who put their trust in government against those who've placed their trust in God.

Garnering over 60 million votes, President Bush won more popular support than any other candidate in the history of the republic. And he's also the first re-elected President since 1936, to add to conservative majorities in both the House and Senate. By any measure, this was a significant mandate -- with conservatives making gains across every demographic group except high-school "drop-outs" and post-doctorates.

Liberals are still in disbelief over the election results, mostly because they're convinced they must be in power to give "our" lives meaning. Listen to their post-election post-mortem and it's apparent the intellectual elite still believe people exist to provide them with power. What they fail to grasp is that -- power exists to provide the people with opportunity.

So this month we drill-down on three major topics. First we examine the "values voters" factor, that seems to have made the difference in the 2004 election. Next we attempt to rally the troops to exorcise the Specter of obstruction, analyzing the peril of granting him power over the judiciary committee. Last, we consider the improving prospects for peace in the Middle East, now that former PLO Chairman Arafat's reign of terror has come to an end.

"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven" (Ecc 3:1).

Roy Tanner

'Moral Values' Tops Voters' Concerns
—But What Does It Mean?

Sexual morality probably trumped social justice concerns, say observers.
By Kevin Eckstrom and Michele M. Melendez, Religion News Service

WASHINGTON—Forget Iraq. Forget terrorism. Forget the economy. The biggest factor shaping people's votes Tuesday (Nov. 2) was the mother of all sleeper issues—"moral values."

In nationwide exit polls, one in five voters said moral values were the most important issue in casting their votes, outpacing every other major topic. Those "values" voters overwhelmingly went for President Bush over Sen. John Kerry, 79 percent to 18 percent.

The stronger-than-expected role of moral values signals that the nation's values agenda is likely to be dominated by "social morality" concerns for abortion, gay marriage, and stem-cell research—issues vital to Bush's base. The election also marks a defeat for progressive groups who tried to cast "social justice" concerns of poverty, war, and the environment as moral issues.

Either way, Jim Wallis, a self-described progressive evangelical, said neither blue states nor red states should try to claim a corner on the values market.

"The right wants to say these are the only moral values, the left wants to say only our issues are moral values," said Wallis, convener of the Washington-based Call to Renewal anti-poverty group. "The truth is there are moral values across the spectrum."

Just how did values become so important, especially in a race dominated by terrorist threats at home and abroad? Wallis faulted the Democrats for a self-inflicted wound on abortion. Kerry's party alienated values-driven voters who could have been wooed by his domestic policies but could not stomach his party's ardent support of abortion rights.

In Ohio, for example, where moral values ranked second (behind the economy), Kerry lost among Catholics 55 percent to 44 percent, which may have been enough to swing the crucial state into Bush's column. Wallis said a "more sensible, reasonable and centrist" policy on abortion could have helped Kerry, especially within his own church.

"There are millions of votes at stake in that Democratic mistake," he said.

Conservatives, meanwhile, say the winning formula was a simple one. Bush's embrace of socially conservative values rallied his evangelical base, who turned out in record force for him at the polls.

Part of what got them there, at least in some states, were constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. Voters who did not favor legal recognition for gay couples broke for Bush by a 2-1 ratio.

"I can tell you this," said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, a conservative group. "It was the values voter that ushered the president down the aisle for a second term."

Values voters were not sequestered in Bush's solid red states. Ohio was narrowly propelled into Bush's column by the 85 percent of voters who ranked values as the second-most important issue. In Iowa, a sought-after swing state, 87 percent of values voters went for Bush. And in Wisconsin, where Kerry eeked out a close win, 82 percent of those whose decision was guided by moral values voted for President Bush.

One reason why values may have emerged as so important is because pollsters did not survey the topic four years ago. John Green, an expert on religion and politics at the University of Akron, said "moral values" can mean different things to different voters. But typically, "When ordinary people think of morality, they think of traditional sexual morality. … They don't think of social justice."

To be sure, other factors such as record-breaking voter registration and anti-war sentiment drew voters to the polls. But if values-oriented voters dominated the pack, Bush had a clear advantage because many of those values are reinforced when those same voters pack churches on Sunday mornings.

According to the exit polls, Bush won handily among frequent church-goers, and pulled even with Kerry among people who attend once a month or less. Bush drew 60 percent of weekly attenders, compared to Kerry's 39 percent, while Kerry led Bush among non-church-goers, 64 percent to 34 percent.

Bush drew 75 percent of white evangelicals, 58 percent of Protestants and 24 percent of Jews, a slight rise from 2000. Kerry had 41 percent of Protestants and 76 percent of Jews. The exit polls, conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for major media organizations, did not include Muslim voters.

Among the coveted Catholic vote, Bush held a slight edge nationally over Kerry, 51 percent to 48 percent. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said Kerry's arms-length relationship with his church came back to haunt him.

"Kerry said, `I will have a secular government, I will not allow my Catholic values to interfere with my public policy,"' Land said. "The president said, `I'm a man of faith and my faith will impact my public policy' and … the American people took Bush's vision over Kerry's."

While Bush's values agenda seems mostly clear cut, the thornier question is what lies ahead for two groups who struggled to employ religious language to shape the values debate—Democrats and religious progressives.

Green, for one, said the challenge for Kerry's party is to develop a language of faith that appeals to values-minded voters. "One of the lessons to the Democratic Party—they need to explore the social justice issues and their connections to faith," Green said.

Wallis, who pushed Kerry to talk more openly about how his faith affects his policies, said it came as "too little, too late." He also said the Democrats need to confront their own inner demons.

"The secular fundamentalism of the left is as much a problem as the religious fundamentalism of the right," he said.

Adelle M. Banks, Itir Yakar and Wangui Njuguna contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today.

The Specter of Obstruction

In his recent address to the Federalist Societys' 2004 National Convention, Senate Majority Leader Frist shared his deep concerns over the practice of using filibuster. His remarks frame-in an environment that chokes-off progress with a deliberate strategy of obstruction.

Couple this practice with (information below on) the potential nomination of Arlen Specter for Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee...and you'll understand why conservatives are taking a stand against both the method and the man...

According to Frist:

The Senate must be allowed to confirm judges who fairly, justly and independently interpret the law.

The current Minority has filibustered 10 -- and threatened to filibuster another 6 -- nominees to federal appeals courts. This is unprecedented in over 200 years of Senate history. With the filibuster of Miguel Estrada, the subsequent filibuster of 9 other judicial nominees, and the threat of 6 more filibusters, the Minority has abandoned over 200 years of Senate tradition and precedent.

This radical action presents a serious challenge to the Senate as an institution and the principle so essential to our general liberty -- the separation of powers. It would be easy to attribute the Minority’s actions to mere partisanship. But there is much more at work. The Minority seeks nothing less than to realign the relationship between our three branches of government.

This filibuster is nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority. The President would have to make appointments that not just win a majority vote, but also pass the litmus tests of an obstructionist minority. If this is allowed to stand, the Minority will have effectively seized from the President the power to appoint judges.

Never mind the Constitution. Never mind the separation of powers. Never mind the most recent election – in which the American people agreed that obstruction must end. The Senate cannot allow the filibuster of circuit court nominees to continue. Nor can we allow the filibuster to extend to potential Supreme Court nominees.

One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end. The Senate must do what is good, what is right, what is reasonable, and what is honorable. The Senate must do its duty. And, when we do, we will preserve and vindicate America’s founding principles for our time and for generations to come.

The Committee of Committees
by the FRC

There has been some question as to why the battle over the Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship is so important for social conservatives. It comes down to the simple fact that the chairman of a committee controls the schedule, staff, and philosophy of the committee. The Judiciary Committee is of critical importance because it is there that federal judges, nominees to the Supreme Court, and nominees for the position of attorney general are vetted and given or denied a vote before the full Senate. The chairman, in setting the schedule and agenda for the committee, can also stop legislation from moving to the full Senate.

The prospect of Chairman Specter in the Judiciary Committee is a real and present threat to pro-life judges and to pivotal legislation like the marriage amendment. A constitutional amendment on marriage is best served by going through the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a Chairman Specter could wield enough power to obstruct its passage or significantly help its passage. We know Arlen Specter is hostile to pro-life judges, and he has said that he would have voted against the marriage amendment earlier this year if given the opportunity. The committee is simply too important for the issues that won elections last week to put in Specter's control. Let the committee know you want a different chairman.

Take Action Now: Stop Sen. Arlen Specter! The "Value Voters" are letting their voices be heard on Capitol Hill on the prospect of Sen. Arlen Specter becoming the new chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Phone lines to the Senate are overwhelmed. Senators are reporting thousands of calls! They are getting a strong message that the voters who returned the President to office and gave Republicans solid control of the U.S. Senate do not want an obstructionist blocking the President's judicial nominees or imposing a pro-abortion litmus test. Just one day after the great election victory of President Bush, Sen. Specter warned the President against nominating pro-life judges. President Bush may have the chance to fill perhaps three vacancies on the Supreme Court in the next four years, including a replacement for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. We must not allow Sen. Specter to determine the make-up of our courts.

The Judiciary Committee will vote in the next few weeks on who will be its chairman. Please take a minute now to tell at least one member of the Judiciary Committee that you don't want Sen. Specter to become Chairman. FRC has provided a one-click email process below as well as a sample letter that you can copy and paste into your email.

Just click on any or all members below to send your important message.

Click here to email Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K23

Click here to email Senator Saxby Chambliss
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K21

Click here to email Senator John Cornyn
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K22

Click here to email Senator Larry Craig
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K20

Click here to email Senator Mike DeWine
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K17

Click here to email Senator Lindsey Graham
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K19

Click here to email Senator Chuck Grassley
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K15

Click here to email Senator Orrin Hatch
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K14

Click here to email Senator Jon Kyl
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K16

Click here to email Senator Jeff Sessions
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K18

Sample Letter

For the subject line paste: Stop Specter

I am deeply troubled by Sen. Arlen Specter's record on judicial nominees.

He opposed Judge Robert Bork, Jeff Sessions and others because of his pro-abortion litmus test. Should he be allowed to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, he could stop President Bush from appointing judges to the federal courts that fit the President's judicial philosophy.

Senator Specter clearly has not shown proper judgment for the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee.

In closing, Mathew Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel stated, “Arlen Specter must be removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although Specter tried to back away from his public remarks about not appointing Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, we need an advocate who can weather the battle over the next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We certainly don’t want a muted neutral party, and we won’t accept an adversary. Specter needs to learn the lesson which Tom Daschle learned the hard way – ‘Listen to the values espoused by your constituents, or lose your job.’”

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY, AND ASK THEM TO TAKE ACTION TODAY!

'Help' That Isn't
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
November 15, 2004

With Yasser Arafat now in the other world, pressure is certain to grow on President Bush to become directly involved in a problem that British Premier Tony Blair has described as the most urgent issue of international politics today.

Bush, however, should think twice before he plunges into an adventure that has caused quite a bit of trouble for all presidents since Harry Truman.

There are three important points to understand before making any move on the Palestinian issue.

The first concerns Arafat. While there is no doubt that Arafat's duplicitous character and inherent opportunism were major obstacles to peace, it would be wrong to blame him exclusively for the lack of progress towards peace.

When the crunch came at the end of 2000, Arafat could not accept what the Israelis offered while the Israelis were not prepared to offer what Arafat wanted — a blanket acceptance of the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

Palestinians now living outside the historic Palestine may now number around 6 million. The prospect of their return would, theoretically at least, amount to a recipe for changing Israel's nature as a Jewish state.

Arafat knew that no Israeli government would be able to accept something that amounted to an invitation to political suicide. At the same time, the Israelis knew that Arafat could not go tell 6 million people scattered all over the world to abandon their dream of return — a dream that most know is unrealizable, but cherish nonetheless.

What did all that mean? It meant neither Israel nor the Palestinians were psychologically or politically prepared for peace.

Both sides spoke of a "just peace" or a "peace of the brave." But peace becomes problematic as soon as we attach an adjective to it.

A child of war, no peace can ever be just. Every peace bears the mark of its unjust origin in some way. "Peace of the brave" is also nonsensical. The brave do not make peace; they go on killing one another on their way to Valhalla or wherever it is that fallen heroes assemble.

Peace is either imposed by the victor or negotiated by cowards who seek the possible rather than the ideal. In either case, there is no place for justice.

Despite years of negotiations and the signing of numerous accords, there is no evidence that either the Palestinians or the Israelis are prepared to accept a peace that might appear unjust to both. Arafat's passing is unlikely to change that fact.

There is also no evidence that greater U.S. involvement would change that fact. President Jimmy Carter, for example, devoted nearly half of his term to the issue. Yet his Camp David accords did not produce peace, but only an official recognition of the "no war, no peace" situation that had been in place since 1967.

In fact, the war that Camp David was supposed to terminate continues on different fronts. It is fought in classrooms, newspapers and books, on television, in cyberspace and in mosques, and through attacks on resorts hosting Israeli tourists.

A majority of Egyptians and Jordanians do not feel they are at peace with Israelis — a majority of whom reciprocate the feeling.

For his part, President Clinton spent more time on the Palestinian issue than on any other. As noted above, he failed because neither side was prepared for peace. And until that changes, there is little than any outsider can do.

The solution to the Palestinian problem cannot be imposed from the outside or from above. It must come from the inside and from below.

In fact, one reason why this problem has continued for so long is that it has attracted intervention by outsiders from the start. Arab states adopted the conflict as a "national cause" which, in practice, meant outsiders would decide the fate of the Palestinians.

This meant that successive generations of Arab despots could play hero at the expense of the Palestinians. They would make fiery speeches and get the applause while the Palestinians went on dying. Palestine became a pan-Arab problem, thus achieving greater complexity by absorbing a variety of other considerations that had nothing to do with the issue itself.

Israel, too, was adopted as a cause, first by France and, after 1965, by the United States. That, coupled with the fact that most Arab states, and the Palestinians, sided with the Soviet bloc gave the conflict an additional Cold War dimension that further complicated matters.

Outside intervention is not always beneficial. History is full of examples of conflicts that continued beyond their natural term because of it. Sometimes, the parties to the conflict feel that, with powerful outside backers, they no longer need to swallow the bitter pills necessary for peace. In other cases, they become pawns in a game that they neither control nor understand.

Inflating the importance of a conflict could also make finding a peaceful solution more difficult. If the parties to the conflict are convinced that their little quarrel is the most important issue facing humanity, they are that much less likely to be amenable to painful compromises — without which there can be no peace.

What we need is a measure of deflation for this Palestine-Israel issue. With respect to Blair, this is not the greatest or even the most urgent issue facing humanity. The whole of historic Palestine covers an area that is 1 percent of Saudi Arabia. It has no natural resources of any importance, and does not even register on the radar of international trade.

When it comes to compassion, this conflict is a fairly minor one. Even recently, we've witnessed greater tragedies in the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Sudan, Rwanda, and Algeria. Right now Thailand is building a real wall, much longer and higher than the Israeli fence, as a shield against its Muslim minority.

Bush's intervention would raise the profile of the dispute once again, thus, paradoxically, making a solution that much more difficult. The Israelis and the Palestinians must be pressed to assume their own responsibilities — which means doing their own peacemaking, just as they have been doing their own war-making and suicide-bombings.

2004-10-24T23:19:00.000-04:00

If given a choice between the devil we know, or the devil we're not too sure of, which one would you vote for? To hear it told from our equally divided and highly partisan electorate, these labels pretty well sum-up the sentiment on the choices we're presented with come November 2nd.

The gravity of the presidency though, requires that we strip away the partisan rhetoric and align ourselves with either the party platform or candidate positions that most closely approximate our worldview. This way we can avoid being too myopic in focusing on just the daily news cycle, or overly concerned about superficial items. That said, when it comes to guiding principle or ideology though -- having the wrong guy at the helm for the next four-years may result in the "end of the world" as we know it.

During the next term for example, analysts virtually guarantee that America will confront a nuclear capable Iran and North Korea (the remaining "axis of evil") to thwart proliferation among some very unsavory actors. And whether we can summon the national will necessary to keep the ideology of global terrorism on the defensive, will also be determined on November 2nd. Last but not least, two or more Supreme Court justices will be retiring next term, and the appointment of their replacements will have a far-reaching affect for sanctity of life policy and traditional marriage in this country -- for a generation.

With all these weighty issues at stake, maybe we should take a closer look at that "devil we don't know." But how is it, that after 24 months of campaigning, John Kerry is still defining himself to the electorate? And why is it that the liberal media has given Senator Kerry a virtual pass when it comes to his 20-year career in public office? While there are precious few bills (i.e. a total of 5) that bear his name over this period, it's his liberal ranking in the Senate that gives conservatives the most cause for concern -- because the present "centrist" campaign rhetoric, doesn't align with the ideological pattern that emerges from his previous voting record.

So to cut through the nuance and ever-changing policy positions of this pillar of ambivalence, this month we'll take a closer look at the ramifications of a Kerry presidency, as it relates to U.S. foreign and domestic policy. To accomplish this, we've selected insightful work, from three leading conservative writers, that exposes John Kerry for being the artful dodger that he is, as well as some sobering analysis of the liberal mind-set that gave rise to Kerry's credible shot at being leader of the free-world.

Be careful what you wish for America -- you may just get it.

Roy Tanner

The Kerry Nightmare
By William Tucker

Last night I had the strangest dream. I guess it was a nightmare, really. I remember most of it, except how it ended.

First I dreamed Kerry won the election. That wasn't so bad in itself. He seemed Presidential enough for the job. He had a dignified bearing, spoke well, didn't mangle his phrases. People were weary after four years of uncertainty under George Bush and ready to try something new.

Kerry started off well. On January 22, in a burst of world optimism, he went to the U.N. and laid down his mea culpa. America had gone it alone too long, he said. We were ready to cooperate with the rest of the world. The General Assembly gave him a 15-minute standing ovation. His speech was cheered wildly in cities from Paris to Berlin to Peshawar. A new day had dawned. Peace was at hand.

The only concrete result that came out of his U.N. visit, however, was that Poland decided to accelerate its troop withdrawal, already scheduled for 2005. Other allies said that since Kerry was throwing in the towel, they were going to leave sooner than later as well. Everyone but Great Britain packed up and headed home. Meanwhile, Kerry visited France and Germany to hold long talks with President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder. The main outcome, however, was that they told him Iraq was his problem and wished him well. Meanwhile, terrorists in Iraq stepped up their operations.

By the time President Kerry got back from Europe, things had taken a turn for the worse. Both Sunni and Shi'ite leaders announced that, despite the January election of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, both now regarded his victory as illegitimate. Democracy was a foreign system that America was trying to impose on the Muslim world. Both recommended a return to the Ummah, with religious leaders at the helm. Since each sect claimed to the rightful heirs of Mohammed, each claimed the right to the position.

The opposition became bolder. Several suicide bombers penetrated the Green Zone and American casualties started to rise. With our allies pulling out, our soldiers were also required to take over key positions in the South. Suddenly we found ourselves stretched way too thin. Rioting broke out in several cities of the Sunni Triangle.

All the pretty plans of the campaign were evaporating and President Kerry now found himself facing the basic contradiction of his position. Was Iraq the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time? Or were we actually undermanned? For two long weeks, Kerry mulled the problem while fierce debate was waged in Congress. Half of Kerry's constituency called for a pullout and peace demonstrations took place in New York and Washington. Many Democrats in Congress said our troops were endangered, however, and call for a draft.

Kerry solved the problem by going to the United Nations. A high level conference was arranged in Baghdad with all sides attending. A truce was called and for three weeks an international panel debated the issue. Finally, it was decided that 140,000 American troops would be given safe passage out of the country. They would leave in an orderly fashion and then Iraqis would continue to meet under U.N. supervision to decide how they would govern themselves.

Like the Indians watching the British march out of Fort William Henry, however, once the terrorists saw their enemies defeated they could not restrain themselves. Before the American soldiers had even begun to pack their bags, they were under daily attack. General fighting broke out in several cities, even as the U.N. panel continued to meet. Then a suicide bomber rammed the home of Prime Minister Allawi and killed him. The elected government collapsed. Civil war broke out between Sunni and Shi'ite militias, both claiming religious authority, while the Kurds withdrew completely, declaring their own state.

Like so many a President before him, John Kerry found himself at the mercy of events. All the pretty plans of his election campaign -- the diplomacy, the conferences with our allies -- were forgotten. Suddenly he was a commander-in-chief trying to rescue a stranded army.

Events didn't wait. Now convinced that America was abandoning the Middle East and no longer content to watch Iran develop a nuclear weapon that in two years would be able to hit Jerusalem, the Israelis sent a fleet of F-16s to drop bunker-busting weapons on three nuclear complexes at Bushehr, Natanz, and Arak. Rioting broke out in every Middle Eastern capital. Terrorists streamed into Baghdad from every direction. Syrian and Egyptian armies prepared for a retaliatory attack against Israel.

That's when I woke up.

I've been walking around in a cold sweat all day thinking about these things. But that's silly, I suppose. After all, it was only a dream. The American people couldn't possibly elect John Kerry President, could they?

William Tucker is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator and a contributing writer to the American Enterprise.

The Therapeutic Choice
A war for our lives, or a nuisance to our lifestyle?
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

Americans are presented with a choice in this election rare in our history. This is not 1952, when Democrats and Republicans did not differ too much on the need to stay in Korea, or even 1968 when Humphrey and Nixon alike did not wish to withdraw unilaterally from Vietnam. It is more like 1972 or 1980, when a naïve McGovern/Dukakis worldview was sharply at odds with the Nixon/Reagan tragic acknowledgement of the need to confront Soviet-inspired Communism. Is it to be more aid, talk, indictments, and summits — or a tough war to kill the terrorists and change the conditions that created them?

Mr. Kerry believes that we must return to the pre-9/11 days when terrorism was but a “nuisance.” In his mind, that was a nostalgic sort of time when the terrorist mosquito lazily buzzed about a snoring America. And we in somnolent response merely swatted it away with a cruise missile or a few GPS bombs when embassies and barracks were blown up. Keep the tribute of dead Americans low, and the chronic problem was properly analogous to law-enforcement’s perpetual policing of gambling and prostitution. Many of us had previously written off just such naïveté, but we never dreamed that our suspicions would be confirmed so explicitly by Kerry himself.

In the now-lost age of unperturbed windsailing and skiing, things were not all that bad before al Qaeda overdid it by knocking down skyscrapers and a corner of the Pentagon — followed by George Bush’s commensurate overreaction in Afghanistan and Iraq that brought on all the present messy and really bothersome cargo of IEDs, beheadings, and promises of dirty bombs to come. The Taliban and Saddam were, of course, bad sports. But really, going all the way over there to topple them, implant democracy, and change the status quo of the Middle East? Tsk, tsk, tsk — well, that was a bit much, was it not?

Terrorist killing, like the first World Trade Center bombing or the USS Cole, certainly was not seen as the logical precursor to 9/11 — the expected wages of a quarter century of appeasement that started with the weak Carter response to the Iranian hostages and was followed by dead soldiers, diplomats, and tourists about every other year. No, these were “incidents” like 9/11 itself — “law-enforcement” issues that called for the DA, writs, and stern prison sentences, the sort of stuff that barristers like Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, and McAuliffe handle so well.

This attitude is part of the therapeutic view of the present struggle that continually suggests that something we did — not the mass murdering out of the Dark Age — brought on our present bother that is now “the focus of our lives.” We see this irritation with the inconvenience and sacrifice once more reemerging in the Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, and the New York Times: We, not fascists and Islamist psychopaths, are blamed for the mess in Iraq, the mess in Afghanistan, the mess on the West Bank, and the mess here at home, but never credited with the first election in 5,000 years in Afghanistan or consensual government replacing autocracy in the heart of the ancient caliphate.

Sometimes our problems arise over our past failure to chastise the Russians over Chechnya. Or was it not enough attention to Mr. Arafat’s dilemmas? Or maybe we extended prior support for corrupt sheiks? All that and more — according to rogue CIA “experts,” best-selling authors, and the omnipresent Richard Clarke — earned us the wrath of the Islamists. Thus surely our past transgressions can be alleviated by present contrition, dialogue, aid, and policy changes of the European kind.

To all you of the therapeutic mindset, listen up. We can no more reason with the Islamic fascists than we could sympathize with the Nazis’ demands over supposedly exploited Germans in Czechoslovakia or the problem of Tojo’s Japan’s not getting its timely scrap-metal shipments from Roosevelt’s America. Their pouts and gripes are not intended to be adjudicated as much as to weaken the resolve of many in the United States who find the entire “war against terror” too big, or the wrong kind, of a nuisance.

Instead, read the fatwas. You hear not just of America’s injustice in Palestine or Chechnya — not to mention nothing about saving Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo or Afghanistan of the 1980s — but also of what we did in Spain in the 15th century and in Tyre, Gaza, and Jerusalem in the 12th. The mystery of September 11, 2001, is not that it happened, but that it did not quite happen when first tried in 1993 during Bill Clinton’s madcap efforts to move a smiling Arafat into the Lincoln Bedroom and keep our hands off bin Laden. Only an American with a JD or PhD would cling to the idea that there was not a connection between Group A Middle Eastern terrorists who attacked the WTC in 1993 and Group B who finished the job in 2001.

A Kerry presidency, we know now, will go back to the tried and true institutions so dear to the therapeutic mind that please the elite and sensitive of our society. How silly that most Americans are about through with the U.N. Indeed, we Neanderthals want it relegated to something like the Red Cross tucked away at the Hague, if not on the frontlines in Nigeria or Bolivia. Yes, we dummies have seen enough of its General Assembly resolutions aimed at the only democracy in the Middle East, its promotion of rogue states such as Syria, Cuba, Iran, and Libya to human-rights watchdogs, its corrupt Oil-for-Food program, and its present general secretary and his role in nepotism and sweet-heart contracts at the expense of the Iraqi people. No surprise that a shaken perpetual-president Hosni Mubarak is calling for a U.N. conference on terror with wonderful Arab League logic: ‘You kill Jews on your own soil, good; you kill them on mine and lose me money, bad.’

The artists, musicians, and entertainers have also railed against the war. In the therapeutic mindset, the refinement and talent of a Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Bruce Springsteen, or John Fogerty earn respect when they weigh in on matters of state policy. But in the tragic view, they can be little more than puppets of inspiration. Their natural gifts are not necessarily enriched by real education or learning. Indeed, they are just as likely to be high-school or college dropouts and near illiterates, albeit with good memories, voices, and looks. The present antics of these influential millionaire entertainers should remind us why Plato banished them — worried that we might confuse the inspired creative frenzies of the artisans with some sort of empirical knowledge. But you can no more sing, or write, or act al Qaeda away than the equally sensitive novelists and intellectuals of the 1930s or 1940s could rehabilitate Stalin.

And then there are the new green billionaires who no longer worry about the struggle to make any more money, much less about state, federal, and payroll taxes that can eat up half of a person’s income. A George Soros may have made his pile by trying to destroy the British financial system, but now he wishes to leave the world safe for currency traders to come by defeating George Bush. The up-from-the-bootstraps struggle to create the dough for the Heinz fortune is a century past and forgotten — thus the post-capitalist Teresa in her private jet and John Kerry on his $500,000 power boat can lecture us about Americans’ shameless oil profligacy and George Bush’s blood for oil gambit in Iraq.

Our mainstream media also cannot quite believe we are at war with evil people who wish us dead — something like the crises that have faced all civilizations at one time or another. Instead, to ponder Rathergate or the recent ABC memo advocating bias in its reporting is to fathom the arrogance of the Enlightenment, and the learned’s frustration with those of us less-gifted folk who don’t quite wish to follow where they lead us. Such anointed ones have taken on the burden of saving us from George Bush and his retrograde ideas. After all, who believes that anyone would really wish to reinstate a mythical caliphate, a Muslim paradise of sharia, gender apartheid, and theocracy spreading the globe through Islamic nukes and biological and chemical bombs? How one dimensional and unsophisticated.

Meanwhile most Americans have already quietly made up their minds. They think the Democratic party is run not by unionists, farmers, miners, truckers, and average folk, but by those rich enough not to have to make a living, and who wish out of either guilt or noblesse oblige to force the dumber upper middle class to be more sensitive, generous, or utopian. Americans also believe Europe has lost its way and is bogged down in a hopeless and soon-to-be scary task of legislating by fiat heaven on earth. We of the tragic persuasion wish them well with Turkey and their unassimilated Islamic populations, but we don’t want our hurtful combat troops there after 60 years of subsidized peacekeeping. Americans also don’t care much about the Nobel prizes anymore — not when a Jimmy Carter is praised after trying to undermine his own president on the eve of war, and not when the most recent peace-prize winner rants on that AIDS is a Western-created germ agent unleashed to hurt Africa but silent about $15 billion in American aid to stop what her own continent is spreading.

John Kerry is probably going to lose this election, despite the “Vote for Change” rock tour, despite Air America, despite Kitty Kelley’s fraud hyped on national media, despite Soros’s MoveOn.org hit pieces, despite Fahrenheit 9/11, despite the Nobel Prizes and Cannes Film Awards, despite Rathergate and ABC Memogate, despite the European press, despite Kofi Annan’s remonstrations, despite a barking Senator Harkin or Kennedy, despite the leaks of rogue CIA Beltway insiders, despite Jimmy Carter’s sanctimonious lectures, despite Joe Wilson, Anonymous, and Richard Clarke — and more. You all have given your best shot, but I think you are going to lose.

Why? Because the majority of Americans does not believe you. The majority is more likely to accept George Bush’s tragic view that we really are in a war for our very survival to stop those who would kill us and to alter the landscape that produced them — a terrible war that we are winning.

When all is said and done, it still is as simple as that.

©2004 Victor Davis Hanson

What John Kerry's America will look like
© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

This week, I began to think for the first time about what I would write if Sen. John Kerry were elected president in November. But then, I realized I should write that column now. What good would it do to awaken people to the dangers of a Kerry administration after that administration had been elected? Here, then, are a few predictions of what will transpire in the unlikely event John Kerry becomes the most powerful man on Earth.

Major terrorist attacks will occur in the United States. John Kerry clearly does not recognize that the fight against terror must be pre-emptive: No amount of wheedling, cajoling or appeasement will convince Islamo-fascist terrorists not to murder Americans. Terrorists must simply face death or capture, but Kerry operates under an amorality designed by the United Nations and therefore feels that American pre-emption is not an option.

Little on Kerry's resume suggests that his views have changed radically since the 1970s, when he demanded that U.S. troops be sent around the world at the behest of the United Nations. Not only that: If Kerry has his way, the much-maligned but incredibly productive Patriot Act will fizzle, allowing terrorists to roam virtually unhindered throughout the United States.

Gay marriage will become a reality across the country. Passage of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage has been rejected by the Senate. And with the radical gay-activist agenda moving full steam forward, it seems very likely that the Defense Of Marriage Act will soon be struck down by the courts, forcing states to accept gay marriages from other states.

Even if DOMA is left standing, though, liberal activists are willing to circumvent the law, as they have in San Francisco and New York. What would President John Kerry do to protect the sacred institution of marriage? Nothing. He opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage – and he was one of only 16 senators to oppose the Defense Of Marriage Act, comparing advocates of DOMA to 1960s racists who opposed interracial marriage. Get ready for Mr. and Mr. Smith if Kerry is elected.

Your taxes will rise. If you're a government leech, vote for John Kerry. Otherwise, a vote for John Kerry means more out of your paycheck. Don't buy the Clintonesque political demagoguery that Kerry will sock it to the millionaires while leaving the rest of us untouched. Look at Kerry's Senate record instead.

If you're a member of the middle class, Kerry wants to raise your taxes. If you own stocks or a car, Kerry wants to raise your taxes. If you die or get married, Kerry wants to raise your taxes. Even if you use the Internet, Kerry might want to raise your taxes – he said in 2001 that online taxation would be needed in the near future. Kerry voted against the Bush tax cuts. Kerry has promised a tax increase of $700 billion – and that's a low-end estimate. If he actually fulfills his campaign spending promises, make that estimate closer to $1.7 trillion. Don't be surprised if a Kerry administration transforms economic boom into stagnancy or even recession.

The military will be crippled – again. Like Bill Clinton, Kerry purports to be a military supporter. And, yes, Kerry served his country with honor. But Kerry's actions upon his return to the United States and his efforts on behalf of the anti-military faction of American liberalism are inexcusable. During his tenure in the Senate, Kerry repeatedly voted to cut back the military – in 2003, Kerry voted against $87 billion to support troops in harm's way. He also campaigns for allowing open homosexuals into the military, a move that will surely undermine morale and morality in our armed services. Kerry insists he will strengthen the military, but which John Kerry will show up? If Bill Clinton was any indicator of Democratic "strong" military policy, we're in real trouble.

These are only a taste of what a Kerry presidency would bring. A vastly liberal Supreme Court is not a probability but a virtual certainty. Abortion would be reinstated in the pantheon of leftist government-sponsored programs. Public education will revert to its previously unaccountable status. America's energy resources will not grow, and dependency on foreign oil will remain.

Trial lawyers will have a vocal advocate in the White House – and when health-care costs go up because of unjustified lawsuits, government-run health care will be proposed as a solution. The legal immigration system will not only remain broken; it will be completely destroyed as Kerry encourages more benefits for "undocumented immigrants."

The America portrayed here will be John Kerry's "stronger America." I just pray we do not have to live in it.

Benjamin Shapiro, 20, is a recent graduate of UCLA and the author of the new book, "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth." To find out more about Ben Shapiro, visit the Creators Syndicate website.

Kerry Family Values

Marriage Penalty

Kerry Voted Against Marriage Penalty Relief At Least 22 Times. 1

Sanctity Of Marriage

Kerry Was One Of Only 14 Senators To Vote Against 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), Which Banned Federal Recognition Of Gay Marriage And Same-Sex Partner Benefits. (H.R. 3396, CQ Vote #280: Passed 85-14: R 53-0; D 32-14, 9/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Praised Massachusetts Civil Unions Ruling, Saying It Called On MA Legislature To "Ensure Equal Protection For Gay Couples." "I have long believed that gay men and lesbians should be assured equal protection and the same benefits - from health to survivor benefits to hospital visitation - that all families deserve. While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long over due." (John Kerry For President, "Statement From John Kerry On Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ruling," Press Release, 11/18/03)

Kerry Supports "Access To Pensions, Health Insurance, Family Medical Leave, Bereavement Leave, Hospital Visitation, Survivor Benefits, And Other Basic Legal Protections" For Same-Sex Couples. "John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees." (John Kerry For President Website, "A Record Of Working On Behalf Of Gay And Lesbian Americans," www.johnkerry.com, Accessed 1/27/04)

Kerry Expressed "Moral Outrage" With Vatican’s Statement On Gay Marriage. "[Kerry] said political concerns are secondary to his moral outrage over Thursday’s Vatican statement on gay marriage. ‘Our founding fathers separated church and state in America. It is an important separation,’ he said. ‘It is part of what makes America different and special, and we need to honor that as we go forward and I’m going to fight to do that.’ Catholics were stunned at the broadside from Kerry, saying he’s sure to draw the ire of some 65 million voting Catholics." (David R. Guarino, "Kerry Raps Pope," The Boston Herald, 8/2/03)

Child Tax Credit

Kerry Voted Against Expanding Child Tax Credit At Least 18 Times. 2

Adoption Tax Credit

Kerry Voted Against Expanding Adoption Tax Credit At Least Seven Times. 3

Abortion

In 1984, Kerry Said He Would Vote Against "Any Restrictions On Age, Consent, Funding Restrictions, Or Any Law To Limit Access To Abortion." (John Kerry As Quoted In "Mass. Senate Candidates Quizzed On Women’s Issues," Sojourner: The Women’s Forum, 6/30/84)

Kerry Received 0% Ranking From National Right To Life Committee For 108th, 107th And 106th Congresses, And 7% Ranking For 105th Congress. (National Right To Life Committee Website, www.nrlc.org, Accessed 1/22/04)

Kerry Is First Presidential Candidate To Ever Be Endorsed By Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "The Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed Mr. Kerry yesterday, the first time it has endorsed a presidential candidate. Its leaders said the election was crucial to preserving access to abortion." (Laurie Goodstein, "Vatican Cardinal Signals Backing For Sanctions On Kerry," The New York Times, 4/24/04)

Kerry Says He Personally Believes Life Begins At Conception, But "Article Of Faith" Should Not Translate Into Public Policy. "I am Catholic and have personally always believed life begins at conception, but I have never believed that that is something that should be translated as a matter of faith, an article of faith, into everybody else’s behavior for those who don’t share that faith ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Campaign Event, Des Moines, IA, 1/9/04)

Kerry Claimed Most Catholics Support Roe, And Blames Bishops For Catholics’ Lack Of Adherence To Faith. "John Kerry said he had to ‘represent all the people in my state,’ including Jews and Buddhists. Then the senator repeated what former House Speaker Tip O’Neill apparently once said in front of several thousand priests and several thousand nuns, that 68 percent of them ‘support Roe v. Wade.’ ‘If the bishops can’t do and won’t say anything about that, don’t come to me. You know what I’m saying?’ said Kerry." (Tom Bethell, "It’s The Bishops’ Problem," The American Spectator, June-July 2003)

Partial-Birth Abortion

Kerry Has Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion. (H.R. 1833, CQ Vote #596: Passed 54-44: R 45-8; D 9-36; I 0-0, 12/7/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1833, CQ Vote #301: Motion Rejected 57-41: R 45-6; D 12-35; I 0-0, 9/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1122, CQ Vote #71: Passed 64-36: R 51-4; D 13-32, 5/20/97, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1122, CQ Vote #277: Rejected 64-36: R 51-4; D 13-32, 9/18/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1692, CQ Vote #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31, I 1-0, 10/21/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3, CQ Vote #402: Agreed To 64-34: R 47-3; D 17-30; I 0-1, 10/21/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Says, "There Is No Such Thing As A Partial Birth." "Just hours after President Bush signed a law banning what critics of the procedure call ‘partial-birth abortion,’ Senator John F. Kerry declared last night ‘there is no such thing as a partial birth,’ as he and the other Democratic presidential contenders sought the political support of women voters. ... ‘It is a late-term abortion. They have done a very effective job of giving people a sense of fear about it. It’s part of their assault on the rights of women in America. ... There’s nothing partial about their effort to undo Roe v. Wade.’" (Glen Johnson, "Kerry Hits Ban On Abortion Procedure," The Boston Globe, 11/6/03)

Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

Kerry Voted To Allow Federal Money To Be Used To Distribute Morning-After Abortion Pill In America’s Schools. (H.R. 4577, CQ Vote #169: Motion Rejected 41-54: R 6-48; D 35-6, 6/30/00, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Has Voted At Least 25 Times In Favor Of Using Taxpayer Dollars To Pay For Abortions In United States. 4

Parental Consent

Kerry Has Voted At Least Three Times Against Requiring Parental Notification For Minor’s Abortion. 5

Homeland Security

Kerry Led The Fight Against President Bush’s Department Of Homeland Security. 6

Senate Democrats Stalled Homeland Security For 112 Days. (H.R. 5005, Received In The Senate 7/30/02; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #249: Passed 90-9: R 48-0; D 41-8; I 1-1, 11/19/02, Kerry Voted Yea)

International "Family Planning"

In 1985, Kerry Expressed "Grave Concern" About White House Decision To Withhold Millions From International Planned Parenthood Federation. "I joined 16 of my colleagues in the senate in sending a letter to the White House expressing our grave concern about the recent decision not to provide the International Planned Parenthood Federation [IPPF] with 17 million dollars’ worth of population assistance appropriated in the fiscal year 1985 budget. This action is especially distressing because it comes at a time when several underdeveloped nations in Africa are experiencing famine. First, we are told that IPPF funds are withheld, and now we learn that the U.S. Agency for International Development is holding up money for family planning that might limit the number of babies born into desperate poverty, by not yet providing to the United Nations Fund For Population Activities [UNFPA] the funds appropriated for it." (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 2/6/85, p. S1213)

Kerry "Called On The Catholic Church To ‘Not Be A Barrier’ To Birth Control Worldwide ..." (Anthony Flint, "US Plans Key Role On Population," The Boston Globe, 3/5/94)

In Opposition To President Bush’s Reinstatement Of Mexico City Policy In 2001, Kerry Said "International Family Planning Programs Are In America’s Best Interests." "President George W. Bush, despite his inaugural pleas for unity, yesterday plunged into one of the nation’s most bitterly divisive fights, banning federal funds for groups providing abortion counseling overseas. ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a strong abortion rights supporter, said Bush’s ban will have severe health consequences across the globe. ‘I will not back away from my conviction that international family planning programs are in America’s best interests,’ Kerry said. ‘We should resist pressures in this country for heavy-handed Washington mandates that ignore basic choices that should belong to free people around the globe.’" (Andrew Miga and Laurel J. Sweet, "Bush Move Sparks Abortion Firestorm," Boston Herald, 1/23/01)

Kerry Says Reversing Mexico City Policy Would Be His First Executive Order. LARRY KING: "What would be the first executive order?" KERRY: "Reverse the Mexico City policy on the gag rule so that we take a responsible position globally on family planning." (CNN/Los Angeles Times, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Los Angeles, CA, 2/26/04)

In 2003, Kerry Voiced His Support For "Population Control Efforts Around The World." "[I] think that tonight we have to make it clear that we are not going to turn back the clock. There is no overturning of Roe v. Wade. There is no packing of the courts with judges who will be hostile to choice. There is no denial of choice to poor women in the United States. There is no outlawing of a procedure necessary to save a woman’s life or health and there are no more cutbacks on population control efforts around the world. We need to take on this President and all of the forces of intolerance on this issue. We need to honestly and confidently and candidly take this issue out to the country and we need to speak up and be proud of what we stand for." (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Remarks At NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner, 1/21/03)

Litmus Test For Judicial Nominees

Kerry Stated He Would Only Support Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe V. Wade. "The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. ... ‘Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.’" (Glen Johnson, "Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters," The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)
Kerry Said He Would Filibuster Any Pro-Life Supreme Court Nominee. "The Supreme Court hangs in the balance and the next justices will determine whether we move forward or backward. Therefore, I will filibuster any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on the right to choose, on civil rights and individual liberties, on the laws protecting workers and the environment." (Sen. John Kerry, A Call To Service, 2003, p. 182)

Human Cloning

In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Invoking Cloture To Human Cloning Prohibition Act. (S. 1601, Roll Call Vote #10: Motion Rejected 42-54: R 42-12; D 0-42, 2/11/98, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Supports So-Called "Therapeutic" Cloning. "While I oppose cloning for the purposes of creating a human being, I do support therapeutic cloning that has the potential to help cure many diseases." (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted In "Q&A: The Democratic Candidates On Higher Education," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/23/04)

Euthanasia

In 1996, Kerry Said He Could Support Assisted Suicide Under "Extreme Circumstances." "On assisted suicide, Kerry said he could support it under extreme circumstances, as long as the patient, doctor and family agreed ‘death might be appropriate.’" (Matt Devine, "Candidates Tone Down Attacks In Fourth Debate," The Patriot Ledger, 8/20/96)

In 1999, Kerry Said He ‘Personally Opposes’ Euthanasia, But "Medical Professionals" Should "Work With Patients To Make Decisions" About Drugs. "Both Massachusetts senators said they oppose physician-assisted suicide, but have reservations about sanctioning a government role in the decision. ‘I personally oppose euthanasia, but I think it's doctors and medical professionals who need to work with patients to make decisions about the use of drugs,’ Senator John F. Kerry said." (Anne E. Kornblut, "Ban On Prescribing Drugs For Suicide Gets House OK," The Boston Globe, 10/28/99)

School Choice

In 1996, Kerry Voted Four Times Against Giving Low-Income D.C. Children School Choice Option. (H.R. 2546, CQ Vote #20: Rejected 54-44: R 50-2; D 4-42, 2/27/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2546, CQ Vote #21: Rejected 52-42: R 48-1; D 4-41, 2/29/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2546, CQ Vote #23: Rejected 53-43: R 49-2; D 4-41, 3/5/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2546, CQ Vote #25: Rejected 56-44: R 51-2; D 5-42, 3/12/96, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 2003, Kerry Said Voucher Program Should Not Be A Moral Argument, And That School Choice Would Abandon Students Left In Public Schools. "[W]e have to guarantee that vouchers are not made into an argument that somehow there’s a morality in taking care of kids, 50 of them, and abandoning 4,000 in the school behind them. I refuse to accept that." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Black Caucus Institute Debate, 9/9/03)

Last November, Kerry Said Vouchers Would "Destroy Inner City Schools" And Leave "Even More Children Behind." "We need a President who will tell the truth about vouchers - that they weaken public education, make it harder to build good citizens, and hurt those most in need. Don’t cry crocodile tears for inner city kids while trying in effect to destroy inner city schools. Vouchers aren’t choice; they’re a bad choice that would leave even more children behind." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks In Council Bluffs, IA, 11/25/03)

As President, Kerry Would Veto "Vouchers Or Voucher-Like Programs." "[Vouchers] don’t reform our public schools - they run away from them. ... I have never supported vouchers. I will never support them. And if it ever comes to my desk, I’ll veto vouchers or voucher-like programs the day that bill arrives." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks In Council Bluffs, IA, 11/25/03)

Religion On Campaign Trail

Kerry: "I Am Saying That I Don’t Believe We Should Raise Religion As A Matter Of Political Strategy. That’s What I’m Saying." (Sen. Kerry, CNBC’s "Capital Report," 1/8/04)

Kerry Used Scripture To Criticize "Our Present National Leadership." "John Kerry cited a Bible verse Sunday to criticize leaders who have ‘faith but has no deeds,’ prompting President Bush’s spokesman to accuse Kerry of exploiting Scripture for a political attack. Kerry never mentioned Bush by name during his speech at New North Side Baptist Church, but aimed his criticism at ‘our present national leadership.’ Kerry cited Scripture in his appeal for the worshippers, including James 2:14, ‘What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?’ ‘The Scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?’ Kerry said. ‘When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion?’" (Nedra Pickler, "Bush Campaign Blasts Kerry’s Bible Quote," The Associated Press, 3/28/04)

Time: "Kerry Has At Times Put A Pious Cast On His Own Rhetoric." "Polls consistently show that Americans prefer their leaders to be religious, and in running to unseat the most openly devout President in recent years, Kerry has at times put a pious cast on his own rhetoric. In a speech at a Mississippi church on March 7, he said Bush does not practice the ‘compassionate conservatism’ he preaches, and quoted James 2:14, ‘What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?’" (Karen Tumulty and Perry Bacon Jr., "A Test Of Kerry’s Faith," Time, 4/5/04)

In 1996, Kerry Complained About Senators Voting Against Their Professed Religious Ideals. "Sen. John F. Kerry, speaking at a Roxbury church, complained yesterday that some of his fellow senators profess Christian beliefs while voting in ways that contradict those ideals. Addressing the congregation of the Twelfth Baptist Church, Kerry said he often feels torn at Senate prayer breakfasts as he meets colleagues who seem to lack compassion in public life. ‘To be candid, I struggle when I sit next to someone who says they’re born again, but votes against child care, votes to cut 12- to 18-year-old kids off Medicaid,’ Kerry said." (Michael Grunwald, "Kerry Tells Congregation Votes Should Match Faith," The Boston Globe, 10/21/96)

And Called On Politicians To Run Their Life "In A Christian Way." "After a few remarks about the apostle Paul, Kerry decried the ‘difference between the rhetoric and the reality’ in politics, urging politicians, ‘Run your life in a Christian way.’" (Michael Grunwald, "Kerry Tells Congregation Votes Should Match Faith," The Boston Globe, 10/21/96)

Now Kerry Defends Positions At Odds With His Church. "Kerry is Roman Catholic, but his support for abortion rights is at odds with Vatican teachings. ‘I don’t tell church officials what to do, and church officials shouldn’t tell American politicians what to do in the context of our public life,’ Kerry said ..." (Nedra Pickler, "Bush Campaign Blasts Kerry’s Bible Quote," The Associated Press, 3/28/04)

Says He Shares Catholic Church’s Anti-Abortion Views, But Says Public Officials Shouldn’t Impose Views On Others. "On abortion, Kerry said that he - as a Catholic - does share his church’s anti-abortion views ‘as an article of faith.’ But as a public official, he said he didn’t believe he had the right to impose such views on others." (Jo Mannies, "Candidates: Bush Must Go," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1/29/04)

Footnotes
1. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote # 178: Rejected 31-69: R 31-23; D 0-46, 5/23/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #552: Motion Agreed To 53-46: R 50-3; D 3-43, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #556: Passed 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 10/28/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #584: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 11/18/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2312, CQ Vote #242: Motion Rejected 48-51: R 4-50; D 44-1, 7/29/98, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1429, CQ Vote #230: Rejected 46-54: R 45-9; D 0-45; I 1-0, 7/29/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1429 CQ Vote #247: Passed 57-43: R 52-2; D 4-41; I 1-0, 7/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #261: Adopted 50-49: R 49-4; D 0-45; I 1-0, 8/5/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 44-56: R 5-50; D 39-6, 4/7/00, Kerry Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #79: Adopted 51-45: R 51-2; D 0-43, 4/7/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #82: Rejected 53-45: R 53-1; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 53-45: R 53-1; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 50-48: R 50-4; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R.4810, CQ Vote #213: Rejected 20-79: R 1-53; D 19-26, 7/18/00, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #214: Adopted 54-45: R 54-0; D 0-45, 7/18/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #215: Passed 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, 7/18/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #79: Adopted 50-50: R 49-1; D 1-49, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #86: Adopted 65-35: R 50-0; D 15-35, 4/6/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #98: Adopted 53-47: R 48-2; D 5-45, 5/10/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #36: Rejected 47-52: R 1-50; D 45-2; I 1-0, 3/10/04, Kerry Voted Yea)

2. (S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #36: Rejected 47-52: R 1-50; D 45-2; I 1-0, 3/10/04, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 56-44: R 50-1; D 6-42; I 0-1, 3/26/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #134: Adopted 51-50: R 49-2; D 1-47; D 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 4/11/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/23/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #106: Rejected 48-52: R 47-4; D 1-47; I 0-1, 3/26/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #86: Adopted 65-35: R 50-0; D 15-35, 4/6/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #98: Adopted 53-47: R 48-2; D 5-45, 5/10/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2014, CQ Vote #160: Passed 80-18: R 51-4; D 29-14, 6/27/97, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #151: Motion Agreed To 57-43: R 50-3; D 7-40, 5/23/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con Res. 178, CQ Vote #159: Adopted 53-46: R 53-0; D 0-46, 6/13/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #178, Rejected 31-69: R 31-23; D 0-46, 5/23/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 67, CQ Vote #296: Adopted 54-46: R 54-0; D 0-46, 6/29/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #552: Motion Agreed To 53-46: R 50-3; D 3-43, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #556: Passed 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 10/28/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #584: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 11/18/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #66: Rejected 42-58: R 42-2; D 0-56, 3/23/94, Kerry Voted Nay)

3. (H.R. 11, CQ Vote #243: Motion Agreed To 46-30: R 1-30; D 45-0, 9/26/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #584: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 11/18/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #556: Passed 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 10/28/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #552: Motion Agreed To 53-46: R 50-3; D 3-43, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #86: Adopted 65-35: R 50-0; D 15-35, 4/6/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #98: Adopted 53-47: R 48-2; D 5-45, 5/10/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay)

4. (H.R. 2965, CQ Vote #255: Motion Rejected 46-46: R 17-31; D 29-15, 10/24/85, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2965, CQ Vote #274: Motion Rejected 47-48: R 35-17; D 12-31, 11/1/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5175, CQ Vote #263: Adopted 48-42: R 16-33; D 32-9, 9/16/86, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2713, CQ Vote #289: Motion Agreed To 60-39: R 16-30; D 44-9, 9/30/87, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4776, CQ Vote #232: Motion Agreed To 49-37: R 16-25; D 33-12, 7/7/88, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4776, CQ Vote #233: Motion Agreed To 51-34: R 16-24; D 35-10, 7/7/88, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4783, CQ Vote #268: Adopted 73-19: R 39-5; D 34-14, 7/27/88, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4776, CQ Vote #348: Motion Agreed To 45-44: R 31-10; D 14-34, 9/30/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4404, CQ Vote #68: Ruling Of The Chair Rejected 45-51: R 34-10; D 11-41, 4/27/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4404, CQ Vote #69: Ruled Germane 54-42: R 12-32; D 42-10, 4/27/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 110, CQ Vote #252: Adopted 62-36: R 16-27; D 46-9, 9/25/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 322, CQ Vote #254: Passed 73-26: R 20-23; D 53-3, 10/1/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2403, CQ #235: Ruled Not Germane 48-51: R 36-7; D 12-44, 8/3/93, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2518, CQ Vote #290: Rejected 40-59: R 6-38; D 34-21, 9/28/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2020, CQ Vote #369: Adopted 52-41: R 15-35; D 37-6, 8/5/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2020, CQ Vote #370: Adopted 50-44: R 40-10; D 10-34, 8/7/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2020, CQ Vote #371: Rejected 45-49: R 9-41; D 36-8, 8/7/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #478: Motion Agreed To 52-44: R 43-9; D 9-35, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #539: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 46-7; D 9-37, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #542: Motion Agreed To 56-43: R 46-7; D 10-36, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3019, CQ Vote #38: Rejected 45-55: R 6-47; D 39-8, 3/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 3756, CQ Vote #284: Motion Agreed To 53-45: R 43-9; D 10-36, 9/11/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 947, CQ Vote #129: Rejected 39-61: R 5-50; D 34-11, 6/25/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1023, CQ Vote #190: Adopted 54-45: R 48-7; D 6-38, 7/22/97, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1282, CQ Vote #197: Motion Rejected 47-51: R 7-46; D 40-5, 7/1/99, Kerry Voted Yea)

5. (H.R. 5257, CQ Vote #266: Motion Rejected 48-48: R 8-34; D 40-14, 10/12/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 323, CQ Vote #131, Adopted 52-47: R 38-5; D 14-42, 7/16/91, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #185: Rejected 45-55: R 31-12; D 14-43, 9/11/91, Kerry Voted Nay)

6. (H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #218: Motion Rejected 50-49: R 0-48; D 49-1; I 1-0, 9/19/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #225: Motion Rejected 49-49: R 1-47; D 47-2; I 1-0, 9/25/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #226: Motion Rejected 50-49: R 1-48; D 48-1; I 1-0, 9/26/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #227: Motion Rejected 44-53: R 1-46; D 42-7; I 1-0, 9/26/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #228: Motion Rejected 45-52: R 2-46; D 42-6; I 1-0, 10/1/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #241: Motion Agreed To 50-47: R 48-0; D 1-46; I 1-1, 11/13/02, Kerry Voted Nay)

2004-09-06T01:24:00.000-04:00

What determines who will be "leader of the free world" for the next 4-years? While many things factor in...none are more important than your vote. And with national elections less than 2-months away, the choice presented before the American electorate has rarely offered more divergent candidate worldviews.

This month we review the accomplishments and positions of the two men who are vying for the office of President of the United States. We begin with excerpts of President Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, followed by his biographical summary. Then we consider whether govenors make better presidents than senators do, with an insightful article "Can Kerry Execute" that appeared in the Wall Street Journal by Pete Du Pont. Last, we provide a comprehensive look at Senator Kerry's voting record during the course of his 20-year tenure in public service.

We're confident that after reviewing this material you will have more than enough data at your disposal to cast a ballot with confidence in what promises to be one of the most important elections in a generation.

Roy Tanner

President Bush at the RNC

Mr. Chairman, delegates, fellow citizens: I am honored by your support, and I accept your nomination for President of the United States.

When I said those words four years ago, none of us could have envisioned what these years would bring. In the heart of this great city, we saw tragedy arrive on a quiet morning. We saw the bravery of rescuers grow with danger. We learned of passengers on a doomed plane who died with a courage that frightened their killers. We have seen a shaken economy rise to its feet. And we have seen Americans in uniform storming mountain strongholds, and charging through sandstorms and liberating millions, with acts of valor that would make the men of Normandy proud.

Since 2001, Americans have been given hills to climb and found the strength to climb them. Now, because we have made the hard journey, we can see the valley below. Now, because we have faced challenges with resolve, we have historic goals within our reach, and greatness in our future. We will build a safer world and a more hopeful America and nothing will hold us back.

Two months from today, voters will make a choice based on the records we have built, the convictions we hold and the vision that guides us forward. A presidential election is a contest for the future. Tonight I will tell you where I stand, what I believe, and where I will lead this country in the next four years.

I believe every child can learn and every school must teach — so we passed the most important federal education reform in history. Because we acted, children are making sustained progress in reading and math, America's schools are getting better, and nothing will hold us back.

I believe we have a moral responsibility to honor America's seniors — so I brought Republicans and Democrats together to strengthen Medicare. Now seniors are getting immediate help buying medicine. Soon every senior will be able to get prescription drug coverage and nothing will hold us back.

I believe in the energy and innovative spirit of America's workers, entrepreneurs, farmers and ranchers — so we unleashed that energy with the largest tax relief in a generation. Because we acted, our economy is growing again, and creating jobs and nothing will hold us back.

I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.

I am running for President with a clear and positive plan to build a safer world and a more hopeful America. I am running with a compassionate conservative philosophy: that government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives. I believe this nation wants steady, consistent, principled leadership — and that is why, with your help, we will win this election.

The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our nation's founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.

The times in which we live and work are changing dramatically. The workers of our parents' generation typically had one job, one skill, one career — often with one company that provided health care and a pension. And most of those workers were men. Today, workers change jobs, even careers, many times during their lives, and in one of the most dramatic shifts our society has seen, two-thirds of all moms also work outside the home.

This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a better living, support your family, and have a rewarding career. And government must take your side. Many of our most fundamental systems — the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, worker training — were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. We will transform these systems so that all citizens are equipped, prepared — and thus truly free — to make your own choices and pursue your own dreams.

My plan begins with providing the security and opportunity of a growing economy. We now compete in a global market that provides new buyers for our goods, but new competition for our workers. To create more jobs in America, America must be the best place in the world to do business. To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making tax relief permanent. To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe. And we must protect small business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America.

Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess — filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than six billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve — and our economic future demands a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.

Another priority in a new term will be to help workers take advantage of the expanding economy to find better, higher-paying jobs. In this time of change, many workers want to go back to school to learn different or higher-level skills. So we will double the number of people served by our principal job training program and increase funding for community colleges. I know that with the right skills, American workers can compete with anyone, anywhere in the world.

In this time of change, opportunity in some communities is more distant than in others. To stand with workers in poor communities — and those that have lost manufacturing, textile and other jobs — we will create American opportunity zones. In these areas, we'll provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business and improve housing and job training to bring hope and work throughout all of America.

As I have traveled our country, I have met too many good doctors, especially ob-gyn , who are being forced out of practice because of the high cost of lawsuits. To make health care more affordable and accessible, we must pass medical liability reform now. And in all we do to improve health care in America, we will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

In this time of change, government must take the side of working families. In a new term, we will change outdated labor laws to offer comp time and flex time. Our laws should never stand in the way of a more family friendly workplace.

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity and independence.

Thanks to our policies, homeownership in America is at an all-time high. Tonight we set a new goal: seven million more affordable homes in the next 10 years so more American families will be able to open the door and say "Welcome to my home."

In an ownership society, more people will own their health plans and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account — a nest egg you can call your own and government can never take away.

In all these proposals, we seek to provide not just a government program, but a path — a path to greater opportunity, more freedom and more control over your own life.

This path begins with our youngest Americans. To build a more hopeful America, we must help our children reach as far as their vision and character can take them. Tonight, I remind every parent and every teacher, I say to every child: No matter what your circumstance, no matter where you live — your school will be the path to the promise of America.

We are transforming our schools by raising standards and focusing on results. We are insisting on accountability, empowering parents and teachers and making sure that local people are in charge of their schools. By testing every child, we are identifying those who need help — and we're providing a record level of funding to get them that help.

We are making progress — and there is more to do. In this time of change, most new jobs are filled by people with at least two years of college, yet only about one in four students gets there. In our high schools, we will fund early intervention programs to help students at risk. We will place a new focus on math and science. As we make progress, we will require a rigorous exam before graduation. By raising performance in our high schools, and expanding Pell grants for low and middle income families, we will help more Americans start their career with a college diploma.

Anyone who wants more details on my agenda can find them online. The web address is not very imaginative, but it's easy to remember: GeorgeWBush.com.

These changing times can be exciting times of expanded opportunity. And here, you face a choice. My opponent's policies are dramatically different from ours. Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them. He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them. To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for — he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes — and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.

His policies of tax and spend — of expanding government rather than expanding opportunity — are the policies of the past. We are on the path to the future — and we are not turning back.

In this world of change, some things do not change: the values we try to live by, the institutions that give our lives meaning and purpose. Our society rests on a foundation of responsibility and character and family commitment.

Because family and work are sources of stability and dignity, I support welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work. Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them. Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.

My opponent recently announced that he is the candidate of "conservative values," which must have come as a surprise to a lot of his supporters. Now, there are some problems with this claim. If you say the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood, I'm afraid you are not the candidate of conservative values. If you voted against the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed, you are not the candidate of conservative values. If you gave a speech, as my opponent did, calling the Reagan presidency eight years of "moral darkness," then you may be a lot of things, but the candidate of conservative values is not one of them.

This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism — and you know where I stand. Three days after September 11th, I stood where Americans died, in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Workers in hard hats were shouting to me, "Whatever it takes." A fellow grabbed me by the arm and he said, "Do not let me down." Since that day, I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America — whatever it takes.

So we have fought the terrorists across the earth — not for pride, not for power, but because the lives of our citizens are at stake. Our strategy is clear. We have tripled funding for homeland security and trained half a million first responders, because we are determined to protect our homeland. We are transforming our military and reforming and strengthening our intelligence services. We are staying on the offensive — striking terrorists abroad — so we do not have to face them here at home. And we are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East, because freedom will bring a future of hope, and the peace we all want. And we will prevail.

Our strategy is succeeding. Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fund-raising, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq was a gathering threat, and al-Qaida was largely unchallenged as it planned attacks. Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida's key members and associates have been detained or killed. We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer.

This progress involved careful diplomacy, clear moral purpose, and some tough decisions. And the toughest came on Iraq. We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction. And we know that Sept. 11th requires our country to think differently: We must, and we will, confront threats to America before it is too late.

Because we acted to defend our country, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are history, more than 50 million people have been liberated, and democracy is coming to the broader Middle East. In Afghanistan, terrorists have done everything they can to intimidate people — yet more than 10 million citizens have registered to vote in the October presidential election — a resounding endorsement of democracy. Despite ongoing acts of violence, Iraq now has a strong prime minister, a national council, and national elections are scheduled for January.

Our nation is standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because when America gives its word, America must keep its word. As importantly, we are serving a vital and historic cause that will make our country safer. Free societies in the Middle East will be hopeful societies, which no longer feed resentments and breed violence for export. Free governments in the Middle East will fight terrorists instead of harboring them, and that helps us keep the peace. So our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is clear: We will help new leaders to train their armies, and move toward elections, and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible. And then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.

Again, my opponent and I have different approaches. I proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, $87 billion in funding needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor. When asked to explain his vote, the Senator said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Then he said he was "proud" of that vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a "complicated" matter. There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.

Our allies also know the historic importance of our work. About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq. And I deeply appreciate the courage and wise counsel of leaders like Prime Minister Howard, and President Kwasniewski, and Prime Minister Berlusconi — and, of course, Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, my opponent takes a different approach. In the midst of war, he has called America's allies, quote, a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others — allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician. I respect every soldier, from every country, who serves beside us in the hard work of history. America is grateful, and America will not forget.

Others understand the historic importance of our work. The terrorists know. They know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate. They know that men and women with hope, and purpose, and dignity do not strap bombs on their bodies and kill the innocent. The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear — and they should be afraid, because freedom is on the march.

I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom. As the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq seize the moment, their example will send a message of hope throughout a vital region. Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel. Young women across the Middle East will hear the message that their day of equality and justice is coming. Young men will hear the message that national progress and dignity are found in liberty, not tyranny and terror. Reformers, and political prisoners, and exiles will hear the message that their dream of freedom cannot be denied forever. And as freedom advances — heart by heart, and nation by nation — America will be more secure and the world more peaceful.

The progress we and our friends and allies seek in the broader Middle East will not come easily, or all at once. Yet Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of liberty to transform lives and nations. That power brought settlers on perilous journeys, inspired colonies to rebellion, ended the sin of slavery, and set our Nation against the tyrannies of the 20th century. We were honored to aid the rise of democracy in Germany and Japan and Nicaragua and Central Europe and the Baltics — and that noble story goes on. I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century. I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by man. I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world.

This moment in the life of our country will be remembered. Generations will know if we kept our faith and kept our word. Generations will know if we seized this moment, and used it to build a future of safety and peace. The freedom of many, and the future security of our Nation, now depend on us. And tonight, my fellow Americans, I ask you to stand with me.

And I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers — to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong.

The world saw that spirit three miles from here, when the people of this city faced peril together, and lifted a flag over the ruins, and defied the enemy with their courage. My fellow Americans, for as long as our country stands, people will look to the resurrection of New York City and they will say: Here buildings fell, and here a nation rose.

We see America's character in our military, which finds a way or makes one. We see it in our veterans, who are supporting military families in their days of worry. We see it in our young people, who have found heroes once again. We see that character in workers and entrepreneurs, who are renewing our economy with their effort and optimism. And all of this has confirmed one belief beyond doubt: Having come this far, our tested and confident Nation can achieve anything.

To everything we know there is a season — a time for sadness, a time for struggle, a time for rebuilding. And now we have reached a time for hope. This young century will be liberty's century. By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America.

Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. This is the everlasting dream of America — and tonight, in this place, that dream is renewed. Now we go forward — grateful for our freedom, faithful to our cause, and confident in the future of the greatest nation on earth.

God bless you, and may God continue to bless America.

Biographical Data on President George W. Bush

George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn into office January 20, 2001, after a campaign in which he outlined sweeping proposals to reform America's public schools, transform our national defense, provide tax relief, modernize Social Security and Medicare, and encourage faith-based and community organizations to work with government to help Americans in need. President Bush served for six years as the 46th Governor of the State of Texas, where he earned a reputation as a compassionate conservative who shaped public policy based on the principles of limited government, personal responsibility, strong families, and local control.

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and he grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. After graduating, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father's successful 1988 presidential campaign, he assembled the group of partners that purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989.

He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998, with 68.6 percent of the vote.

Since taking office, President Bush has signed into law bold initiatives to improve public schools by raising standards, requiring accountability, and strengthening local control. He has signed tax relief that provided rebate checks and lower tax rates for everyone who pays income taxes in America. He has increased pay and benefits for America's military and is working to save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. He is also committed to ushering in a responsibility era in America, and has called on all Americans to be "citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens building communities of service and a Nation of character."

The attacks of September 11th changed America - and in President Bush's words, "in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment." President Bush declared war against terror and has made victory in the war on terrorism and the advance of human freedom the priorities of his Administration. Already, the United States military and a great coalition of nations have liberated the people of Afghanistan from the brutal Taliban regime and denied al Qaeda its safe haven of operations. Thousands of terrorists have been captured or killed and operations have been disrupted in many countries around the world. In the President's words, "our Nation - this generation - will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

President Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. The Bush family also includes their two dogs, Spot and Barney, and a cat, India.

Can Kerry Execute?
Why governors make better presidents than senators do.

by Pete du Pont
Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

My senior senator, Joe Biden of Delaware, gave a hometown speech earlier this year about U.S. foreign policy in Iraq. It was a thoughtful presentation, but it included a criticism of the election of former governors to the presidency because they had no foreign-policy experience and thus were insensitive and less capable regarding foreign policy and international concerns. Senators who've served on the Foreign Relations Committee, he implied, would do much better.

But Mr. Biden has it backwards. Of the 17 presidents of the 20th century, from Teddy Roosevelt through Bill Clinton, eight had been executives before coming to the White House (seven governors and Gen. Dwight Eisenhower), and seven had served in Congress but lacked executive experience. (William Taft and Herbert Hoover held only appointive offices before becoming president.) The current book "Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House," compiled by The Wall Street Journal and the Federalist Society (and available from the OpinionJournal bookstore), asked 78 scholars to rate all our presidents. Among the 20th-century presidents, five of those with executive experience--Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ike, Ronald Reagan and Woodrow Wilson--ranked as great or near great. Among the seven with legislative experience, only Harry S. Truman made the cut. On average, 20th-century presidents who had been governors (plus Eisenhower) scored 3.51 on a five-point scale; the others who had served in the House or Senate, 2.81.

Which leads to the conclusion that America is usually better off with a president who has had executive experience before reaching the White House. Presidents have to lead, set a course, and come to conclusions. Senators can, with furrowed brow, be very concerned, vote this way and that to show their concern, and hope to gain the votes of the citizens expressing the concerns. But once in the White House, men of concern, consensus and compromise are much less likely to provide the leadership the country needs than men of principle, resolve, and the executive experience to make decisions.

And that is the problem with Sen. John Kerry as a potential president. He looks concerned, no doubt is concerned, with everyone's point of view. As senator he votes one day for trade agreements like Nafta, and later on opposes them. He can vote for funding the war in Iraq before he votes against it. He can be worried about France and Germany, and base America's foreign policy upon their agreement so as not to raise their concerns.

There is no question that Mr. Kerry is a liberal's liberal. National Journal rated his 2003 Senate voting record as the most liberal of all 100 senators--more liberal than even Ted Kennedy. He is against the death penalty (except for terrorists), and he says he personally opposes abortion, as a political matter he supports it fully and opposes the confirmation of judicial nominees who are not pro-abortion. He says he opposes same-sex marriage, but voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. He is opposed to any form of school choice.

None of this should be a surprise; Democratic presidential nominees are always very liberal or they would not have won the liberal party's nomination.

But what is surprising is Mr. Kerry's regression to failed policies of the past. He strongly believes in the redistribution of income--higher income taxes, returning to the double taxation of dividends by raising the dividend tax from 15% back to 40%--and a broad and deep increase in the size and authority of the federal government. He has proposed a $653 billion federal health-care program and another trillion dollars in other new spending, which would about a 10% increase in federal spending in his first year in office. Like FDR in the 1930s, he wants to control business activity with heavy regulation; like Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, he wants to accelerate the growth of government substantially.

John Kerry has become a virulent protectionist, promising to eviscerate existing trade agreements--including Nafta, for which he voted in 1993--by adding environmental and other requirements that would reduce trade and limit the lower consumer prices and greater American job opportunities it creates. His running mate, John Edwards--another very liberal senator (fourth in the National Journal rating) without executive experience--more strongly states the Kerry-Edwards trade position: "I campaigned against Nafta. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, and against the Singapore trade agreement." Sounds as if they would have supported Herbert Hoover's Smoot-Hawley tariffs that devastated America's economy 70 years ago.

On the use of military force to protect America's interests, Mr. Kerry is a creature of the 1960s, an antiwar, minimal-defense believer. He worked in the Senate to reduce missile defense funding and cut funding for military aircraft and tanks. He opposed American actions to topple a communist dictatorship in Nicaragua, and he protested against the war in Vietnam (where he had honorably served), because "communism was not a threat to our country." He opposed liberation of Kuwait, believing that economic sanctions would have persuaded Saddam Hussein to go home. And Mr. Kerry's effort in the 1990s to cut $7 billion out of intelligence funding and thus limit the scope and ability of intelligence services to protect our nation is unnerving.

Mr. Kerry's vision becomes no clearer when he looks ahead to future challenges. In 2004, for the first time in recent history, the federal government will have to use general revenue--about $45 billion, or 3.6% of federal income tax revenues--to pay Social Security and Medicare benefits. With the growing baby boomer retirement, Social Security's demand on outside tax revenues will quickly grow. Mr. Kerry is very concerned about Social Security, so what would he do to solve the problem? Reduce benefits? No. Raise the retirement age? No. Raise taxes? No. Impose means testing? No. Move the system to privately owned accounts so that retirement benefits can grow and federal revenue contributions are reduced? No again. On the most significant economic challenge of the coming decades, John Kerry has no vision, no goal, no response at all--not a good sign for a prospective leader of the United States.

His nomination speech in Boston restated his tax-increase proposal and his protectionism--and avoided almost everything he voted for as a senator. He stressed the need for "a strong military," even though his Senate voting record reflects the exact opposite. He would like us to think he is a new man with a different viewpoint, but people rarely abandon one long-held set of political viewpoints and adopt another. He is likely "reporting for duty"--a very good line--in the future with the same liberal beliefs and policy uncertainties he has expressed in the past.

John Kerry would certainly be a concerned president, but concern is not enough. A principled president with a clear vision and executive leadership experience is far more important for our nation.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is policy chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

Who Is John Kerry?

If we consider just his remarks during his acceptance speech at the DNC, Senator Kerry's biography seemed to end at 24. Surely America doesn't want to elect a lieutenant to the presidency. The voters want a commander-in-chief, but there is precious little in the autobiography of John Kerry, to commend him to us.

What did this man do as an adult? What happened during his service as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant-governor in Massachusetts and in his 20 years in the United States Senate? What bills did he introduce? What initiatives did he sponsor? Which investigations did he lead? What amendments bear his name? What great debates did he participate in? What did he do for his constituents in Massachusetts? What injustices did he correct?

Well, for the record, let's take a look...

THE FACTS ABOUT SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA)

National Journal Named Kerry “Most Liberal” Congressional Dem Running For President. “A compilation of the annual scores for the seven Democrats [running for President] over the past 20 years shows that Kerry was the most liberal throughout the period. … With limited exceptions, Kerry’s scores have consistently placed him toward the liberal end of the Senate.” (Richard E. Cohen, “Keeping Score,” National Journal, 1/31/03)

Nonpartisan National Journal Scored Kerry’s Votes Most Liberal In Senate For 2003.
Kerry scored a Senate-high 97% liberal rating for 2003, beating out Sens. Barbara Boxer (91), Hillary Clinton (89), Ted Kennedy (88), and Tom Daschle (80). (National Journal Website, “How They Measured Up,” http://nationaljournal.com, 2/27/04)

KERRY CLAIMS HE’S FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, BUT VOTES FOR HIGHER TAXES, AND AGAINST TAX CUTS

- Kerry Has Voted At Least 350 Times For Higher Taxes.
- Kerry Voted For Biggest Tax Increase In American History Under President Clinton.
- Kerry Voted Against President Bush’s Historic 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts.
- Kerry Has Voted Against Balanced Budget Amendment At Least Five Times.
- Kerry Has Voted Against Major Tax Relief At Least 29 Times.

KERRY IS EXTREME ON ABORTION, SUPPORTING FEDERAL FUNDING AND IRRESPONSIBLE PRACTICES

- Kerry Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortions.
- Kerry Voted Three Times Against Parental Consent/Notification For Minor’s Abortion.
- Kerry Voted To Allow Federal Funding Of Abortions And To Provide Abortion Counseling In Federally-Funded Clinics.

KERRY IN DEPTH

KERRY CLAIMS HE’S FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, BUTHAS A HISTORY OF VOTING FOR HIGHER TAXES

Kerry Voted Against Major Tax Relief At Least 29 Times, Including President Bush’s Historic 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/23/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #134: Adopted 51-50: R 49-2; D 1-47; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 4/11/03, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 56-44: R 50-1; D 6-42; I 0-1, 3/26/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, Roll Call Vote #165: Adopted 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #98: Adopted 53-47: R 48-2; D 5-45, 5/10/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #86: Adopted 65-35: R 50-0; D 15-35, 4/6/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, Roll Call Vote #69: Adopted 53-47: R 4-46; D 49-1, 4/4/01, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2614, CQ Vote #286: Motion Agreed To 55-40: R 50-1; D 5-39, 10/26/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 50-48: R 50-4; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #79: Adopted 51-45: R 51-2; D 0-43, 4/7/00, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 44-56: R 5-50; D 39-6, 4/7/00, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1429, CQ Vote #230: Motion Rejected 46-54: R 45-9; D 0-45; I 1-0, 7/29/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 68, CQ Vote #81: Adopted 55-44: R 54-0; D 1-44, 3/25/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #261: Adopted 50-49: R 49-4; D 0-45; I 1-0, 8/5/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1429, CQ Vote #247: Passed 57-43: R 52-2; D 4-41; I 1-0, 7/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2014, CQ Vote #160: Passed 80-18: R 51-4; D 29-14, 6/27/97, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 84, CQ Vote #92: Adopted 78-22: R 41-14; D 37-8, 5/23/97, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 27, CQ Vote #90: Motion Agreed To 73-27: R 28-27: D 45-0, 5/23/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 27, CQ Vote #77: Motion Agreed To 68-31: R 23-31; D 45-0, 5/21/97, Kerry Voted Yea; H. Con Res. 178, CQ Vote #159: Adopted 53-46: R 53-0; D 0-46, 6/13/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #151: Motion Agreed To 57-43: R 50-3; D 7-40, 5/23/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #140: Rejected 43-57: R 40-13; D 3-44, 5/22/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #584: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 11/18/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #556: Passed 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 10/28/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 67, CQ Vote #296: Adopted 54-46: R 54-0; D 0-46, 6/29/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #178: Rejected 31-69: R 31-23; D 0-46, 5/23/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2118, CQ Vote #160: Motion Rejected 39-59: R 35-8; D 4-51, 6/22/93, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3628, CQ Vote #298: Rejected 51-47 (needed 3/5 majority): R 45-0; D 6-47, 11/15/89, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Voted Twice For Largest Tax Increase In U.S. History.
(H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 6/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 8/6/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

In His Senate Career, Kerry Has Voted Against Balanced Budget Amendment At Least Five Times. Other fiscally irresponsible votes include at least three key votes against lowering overall spending.
(S.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #24: Rejected 66-34: R 55-0; D 11-34, 3/4/97; H.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #158: Rejected 64-35: R 52-1; D 12-34, 6/6/96; H.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #98: Rejected 65-35: R 51-2; D 14-33, 3/2/95; S.J. Res. 41, CQ Vote #48: Rejected 63-37: R 41-3; D 22-34, 3/1/94; S.J. Res. 225, CQ Vote #45: Rejected 66-34: R 43-10; D 23-24, 3/25/86)

Kerry Named Most Liberal Senator On Economic Issues. National Journal’s most recent scores gave Kerry a 95/100 liberal score on economic issues – the highest in the Senate. In fact, Kerry’s score tied with only 4 other Senators: Boxer (D-CA), Clinton (D-NY), Reed (D-RI), and the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN).

Received A 35 Percent Lifetime Rating From U.S. Chamber Of Commerce. (U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Website, “How They Voted Scorecards,” http://www.uschamber.com/, Accessed 3/8/04)

National Taxpayers Union Foundation Ranked Kerry Below Congress’ Only Self-Proclaimed Socialist. Between 1992 and 2003, Sen. John Kerry racked up an 18.75 percent average rating from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) had an average rating of 25.4 during the same time period. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, “Rates Congress Database,” http://www.ntu.org/, Accessed 4/8/04)

Kerry Called For “Fiscal Responsibility,” Just Like When He Voted For The 1993 Tax Hike, The Largest In History. “All the Democrats have generally resisted the GOP proposal to make the tax cuts permanent. . . . Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry called for ‘a return to the fiscal responsibility we gave this country in 1993 when we passed the Deficit Reduction Act.’” (Will Lester, “Top Democrats Complain About Bush Economic Plans, But Some Steer Away From Tax Debate,” The Associated Press, 10/15/02)

Kerry Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes In Economic Downturn:
In September 2001, Kerry Said We Should Not Raise Taxes In An Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . . you don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)

In April 2002, Kerry Said He Wanted A Larger Tax Cut And Was “Not In Favor Of” A Repeal. CNN’S TUCKER CARLSON: “Senator Kerry, . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush’s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?” KERRY: “It’s not a question of courage. . . . And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year . . . . [T]he next tax cut doesn’t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it’s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I’m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 4/16/02)

In December 2002, Kerry Flip-Flopped. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut . . . . What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts. . . .” RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years . . . .” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change, because let me show you what you said in September of 2001 when I asked you the very same question.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

KERRY IS EXTREME ON ABORTION, SUPPORTING FEDERALFUNDING OF ABORTIONS AND PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

Kerry Has Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion.
(H.R. 1833, CQ Vote #596: Passed 54-44: R 45-8; D 9-36; I 0-0, 12/7/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1833, CQ Vote #301: Motion Rejected 57-41: R 45-6; D 12-35; I 0-0, 9/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1122, CQ Vote #71: Passed 64-36: R 51-4; D 13-32, 5/20/97, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1122, CQ Vote #277: Rejected 64-36: R 51-4; D 13-32, 9/18/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1692, CQ Vote #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31, I 1-0, 10/21/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3, CQ Vote #402: Agreed To 64-34: R 47-3; D 17-30; I 0-1, 10/21/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Says, “There Is No Such Thing As A Partial Birth.” “Just hours after President Bush signed a law banning what critics of the procedure call ‘partial-birth abortion,’ Senator John F. Kerry declared last night ‘there is no such thing as a partial birth,’ as he and the other Democratic presidential contenders sought the political support of women voters. … ‘It is a late-term abortion. They have done a very effective job of giving people a sense of fear about it. It’s part of their assault on the rights of women in America. … There’s nothing partial about their effort to undo Roe v. Wade.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Hits Ban On Abortion Procedure,” The Boston Globe, 11/6/03)

Kerry Has Voted At Least 25 Times In Favor Of Using Taxpayer Dollars To Pay For Abortions In The United States.
(H.R. 2965, CQ Vote #255: Motion Rejected 46-46: R 17-31; D 29-15, 10/24/85, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2965, CQ Vote #274: Motion Rejected 47-48: R 35-17; D 12-31, 11/1/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5175, CQ Vote #263: Adopted 48-42: R 16-33; D 32-9, 9/16/86, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2713, CQ Vote #289: Motion Agreed To 60-39: R 16-30; D 44-9, 9/30/87, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4776, CQ Vote #232: Motion Agreed To 49-37: R 16-25; D 33-12, 7/7/88, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4776, CQ Vote #233: Motion Agreed To 51-34: R 16-24; D 35-10, 7/7/88, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4783, CQ Vote #268: Adopted 73-19: R 39-5; D 34-14, 7/27/88, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4776, CQ Vote #348: Motion Agreed To 45-44: R 31-10; D 14-34, 9/30/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4404, CQ Vote #68: Ruling Of The Chair Rejected 45-51: R 34-10; D 11-41, 4/27/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4404, CQ Vote #69: Ruled Germane 54-42: R 12-32; D 42-10, 4/27/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 110, CQ Vote #252: Adopted 62-36: R 16-27; D 46-9, 9/25/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 322, CQ Vote #254: Passed 73-26: R 20-23; D 53-3, 10/1/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2403, CQ #235: Ruled Not Germane 48-51: R 36-7; D 12-44, 8/3/93, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2518, CQ Vote #290: Rejected 40-59: R 6-38; D 34-21, 9/28/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2020, CQ Vote #369: Adopted 52-41: R 15-35; D 37-6, 8/5/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2020, CQ Vote #370: Adopted 50-44: R 40-10; D 10-34, 8/7/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2020, CQ Vote #371: Rejected 45-49: R 9-41; D 36-8, 8/7/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #478: Motion Agreed To 52-44: R 43-9; D 9-35, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #539: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 46-7; D 9-37, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #542: Motion Agreed To 56-43: R 46-7; D 10-36, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3019, CQ Vote #38: Rejected 45-55: R 6-47; D 39-8, 3/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 3756, CQ Vote #284: Motion Agreed To 53-45: R 43-9; D 10-36, 9/11/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 947, CQ Vote #129: Rejected 39-61: R 5-50; D 34-11, 6/25/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1023, CQ Vote #190: Adopted 54-45: R 48-7; D 6-38, 7/22/97, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1282, CQ Vote #197: Motion Rejected 47-51: R 7-46; D 40-5, 7/1/99, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1984, Kerry Said He Would Vote Against “Any Restrictions” On Age Or Consent For Abortion. Kerry: “Throughout my political career, I have opposed any attempt to infringe on women’s reproductive freedom. I shall continue to oppose any such attempts however they are guised. I believe this decision is outside the province of government entirely, and would vote against any restrictions on age, consent, funding restrictions, or any law to limit access to abortion.” (“Mass. Senate Candidates Quizzed on Women’s Issues,” Sojourner: The Women’s Forum, 6/30/84)

Kerry Has Voted At Least Three Times Against Requiring Parental Consent Or Notification For A Minor’s Abortion. (H.R. 5257, CQ Vote #266: Motion Rejected 48-48: R 8-34; D 40-14, 10/12/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 323, CQ Vote #131, Adopted 52-47: R 38-5; D 14-42, 7/16/91, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #185: Rejected 45-55: R 31-12; D 14-43, 9/11/91, Kerry Voted Nay)

While Kerry Earns A 0% Rating From The National Right To Life Committee, His NARAL Rating Is Consistently 100%. (Vote Smart Interest Group Ratings, www.vote-smart.org, Accessed 12/6/02)

Kerry Received 100% Ranking For 2003 Votes From Planned Parenthood. (Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. Website, http://www.ppaction.org/ppvotes/person-vote.html?person_id=2040, Accessed 1/24/04)

Kerry Received 100% Ranking For 1999 Votes From Planned Parenthood. (“Performance Evaluations Data For Senator John Forbes Kerry Of Massachusetts,” http://www.votesmart.org/, Accessed 7/19/00)

Kerry Received 100% Ranking For 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 Votes From NARAL. (NARAL, Congressional Votes On Abortion, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993)

Kerry Received 100% Ranking For 2002 Votes From NARAL Pro-Choice America. (NARAL Pro-Choice America Website, http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/publications/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=2079, Accessed 1/24/04)

Kerry Received 0% Ranking From National Right To Life Committee For 108th, 107th And 106th Congresses, And 7% Ranking For 105th Congress. (National Right To Life Committee Website, http://www.nrlc.org/, Accessed 1/22/04)

KERRY HAS A HISTORY OF CONTRADICTING HIMSELF AND TAKING BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE

The Iraq War

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class

Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03)

Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)

But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

The Patriot Act

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)

The First Gulf War

Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. “Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ‘Notebook’ item from TNR’s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ‘Same Senator, Same Constituent’:

‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]

‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]” (Noam Scheiber, “Noam Scheiber’s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)

Gay Marriage Amendment

In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter “Urging” MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. “We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.” (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)

Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” (Susan Milligan, “Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’” The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)

On Attacking President During Time Of War

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. “Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’” (Glen Johnson, “Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,” The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. “‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’” The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)

Death Penalty For Terrorists

In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.” (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)

In 1996, Kerry Said, “You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.” (Timothy J. Connolly, “The ‘Snoozer’ Had Some Life,” [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)

But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

No Child Left Behind

Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As “Mockery.” “Between now and the time I’m sworn in January 2005, I’m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind.’” (Holly Ramer, “Kerry Wants To Make ‘Environmental Justice’ A Priority,” The Associated Press, 4/22/03)

Kerry Trashed NCLB As ‘Unfunded Mandate’ With ‘Laudable’ Goals. “Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ‘unfunded mandate’ with ‘laudable’ goals. ‘Without the resources, education reform is a sham,’ Kerry said. ‘I can’t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words “no child left behind.”’” (Matt Leon, “Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,” The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)

Double Taxation Of Dividends

December 2002: Kerry Favored Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it’s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02)
May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. ‘This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,’ he said.” (“Kerry Says Time Is On Dems’ Side,” The Associated Press, 5/8/03)

Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn

September 2001: Said Should Not Raise Taxes In Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . .[Y]ou don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)

We Should “Absolutely Not Raise Taxes.” “Well, I think it’s very clear what I favor because we voted for it early in the spring, which was the Democratic budget alternative that had triggers in it where you didn’t wind up spending money you don’t have. It had a smaller tax cut but more tax cut for a stimulus, which is what we need. So you ask me, what do we need now? Yes, we need additional stimulus. We should absolutely not raise taxes. We should not cut spending. What we need to do is drive the economy of this country. The economy is the number one issue. It is the most important thing we should focus on.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 9/8/01)

April 2002: Said He Wanted Larger Tax Cut And Was “Not In Favor Of” Repeal. CNN’s TUCKER CARLSON: “Senator Kerry . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush’s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?” KERRY: “It’s not a question of courage. . . . And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year … [T]he next tax cut doesn’t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it’s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I’m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 4/16/02)

December 2002: Flip-Flopped, Would Keep Tax Cuts From Taking Effect. NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut … What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.” … RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years …” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” … RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change …” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

Called For Freeze Of Bush Tax Cuts In Favor Of Year-Long Suspension Of Payroll Taxes On First $10,000 Of Personal Income. “Kerry said Bush’s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush’s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class.” (Tyler Bridges, “Kerry Visits Miami To Start Raising Funds,” The Miami Herald, 12/7/02)

50-Cent Gas Tax Increase

In 1994, Kerry Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. “Kerry said [the Concord Coalition’s scorecard] did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers’ efforts to cut the deficit. ‘It doesn’t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,’ Kerry said.” (Jill Zuckman, “Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,” The Boston Globe, 3/1/94)

Two Years Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped. “Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike, nor the 25-cent hike proposed by the [Concord] coalition.” (Michael Grunwald, “Kerry Gets Low Mark On Budgeting,” The Boston Globe, 4/30/96)

On Leaving Abortion Up To States

Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. “I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,” Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (“John Kerry On The Issues,” The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)

Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. “The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)

Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees

Kerry Used To Oppose Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. “Throughout two centuries, our federal judiciary has been a model institution, one which has insisted on the highest standards of conduct by our public servants and officials, and which has survived with undiminished respect. Today, I fear that this institution is threatened in a way that we have not seen before. … This threat is that of the appointment of a judiciary which is not independent, but narrowly ideological, through the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed …” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/86, p. S864)

But Now Kerry Says He Would Only Support Supreme Court Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe v. Wade. “The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. … ‘Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)

The Israel Security Fence

October 2003: Kerry Calls Fence “Barrier To Peace.” “And I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel’s security over the long- term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks Before Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference, Dearborn, MI, 10/17/03)

February 2004: Kerry Calls Fence “Legitimate Act Of Self-Defense.” “US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, described Israel’s construction of a security barrier as a ‘legitimate act of self defense’ after Sunday’s suicide bombing in Jerusalem, clarifying a position he took in October when he told an Arab American audience, ‘We don’t need another barrier to peace.’” (Janine Zacharia, “Kerry Defends Security Fence,” The Jerusalem Post, 2/25/04)

Ballistic Missile Defense

Kerry Called For Cancellation Of Missile Defense Systems In 1984 And Has Voted Against Funding For Missile Defense At Least 53 Times Between 1985 And 2000.
(“John Kerry On The Defense Budget,” Campaign Position Paper, John Kerry For U.S. Senate, 1984; S. 1160, CQ Vote #99: Rejected 21-78: R 2-50; D 19-28, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #100: Rejected 38-57: R 6-45; D 32-12, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #101: Rejected 36-59: R 1-49; D 35-10, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #103: Rejected 33-62: R 28-22; D 5-40, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.J. Res. 465, CQ Vote #365: Motion Agreed To 64-32: R 49-2; D 15-30, 12/10/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4515, CQ Vote #122: Ruled Non-Germane 45-47: R 7-42; D 38-5, 6/6/86, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2638, CQ Vote #176: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 41-11; D 9-38, 8/5/86, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2638, CQ Vote #177: Rejected 49-50: R 10-42; D 39-8, 8/5/86, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1174, CQ Vote #248: Motion Agreed To 58-38: R 8-37; D 50-1, 9/17/87, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1174, CQ Vote #259: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 37-9; D 13-41, With Vice President Bush Casting An “ Yea “ Vote, 9/22/87, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #124: Motion Agreed To 66-29: R 38-6; D 28-23, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #125: Motion Agreed To 50-46: R 38-7; D 12-39, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #126: Motion Rejected 47-50: R 38-6; D 9-44, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #128: Motion Rejected 48-50: R 6-39; D 42-11, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2355, CQ Vote #136: Motion Agreed To 56-37: R 9-34; D 47-3, 5/13/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2355, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 51-43: R 38-5; D 13-38, 5/13/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4264, CQ Vote #251: Motion Rejected 35-58: R 35-9; D 0-49, 7/14/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4781, CQ Vote #296: Motion Agreed To 50-44: R 5-39; D 45-5, 8/5/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1352, CQ Vote #148: Motion Agreed To 50-47: R 37-6; D 13-41, 7/27/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #202: Rejected 34-66: R 27-18; D 7-48, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 53-47: R 39-6; D 14-41, 9/28/89, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #223: Adopted 54-44: R 2-42; D 52-2, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #225: Motion Agreed To 56-41: R 39-4; D 17-37, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #226: Motion Agreed To 54-43: R 37-6; D 17-37, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D 35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4990, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 90-9: R 34-9; D 56-0, 5/21/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5504, CQ Vote #228: Adopted 89-4: R 36-4; D 53-0, 9/22/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 9/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42, 8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1635, CQ Vote #157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 936, CQ Vote #171: Rejected 43-56: R 2-53; D 41-3, 7/11/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Motion Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #262: Motion Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Then Claimed To Support Missile Defense. “I support the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers. If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing missiles at any city in the United States, responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it were to happen, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense.” (Peace Action Website, “Where Do The Candidates Stand On Foreign Policy?” http://www.peace-action.org/2004/Kerry.html, Accessed 3/10/04)
Now Kerry Campaign Says He Will Defund Missile Defense. FOX NEWS’ MAJOR GARRETT: “Kerry would not say how much all of this would cost. A top military adviser said the Massachusetts Senator would pay for some of it by stopping all funds to deploy a national ballistic missile defense system, one that Kerry doesn’t believe will work.” KERRY ADVISOR RAND BEERS: “He would not go forward at this time because there is not a proof of concept.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/17/03)

View Of War On Terror

Kerry Said War On Terror Is “Basically A Manhunt.” “Kerry was asked about Bush’s weekend appearance on ‘Meet the Press’ when he called himself a ‘war president.’ The senator, who watched the session, remarked: ‘The war on terrorism is a very different war from the way the president is trying to sell it to us. It’s a serious challenge, and it is a war of sorts, but it is not the kind of war they’re trying to market to America.’ Kerry characterized the war on terror as predominantly an intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operation. ‘It’s basically a manhunt,’ he said. ‘You gotta know who they are, where they are, what they’re planning, and you gotta be able to go get ‘em before they get us.’” (Katherine M. Skiba, “Bush, Kerry Turn Focus To Each Other,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/13/04)

Two Weeks Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped, Saying War On Terror Is More Than “A Manhunt”. “This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At University Of California At Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 2/27/04)

Funding For Our Troops In Iraq

Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With “Whatever Number” Of Dollars It Took. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)

Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package. “Passage of the bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in fiscal 2004 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. It also would provide $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90 percent of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has been forgiven by other countries. Separate provisions limit reconstruction aid to $18.4 billion. It also would provide approximately $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care.”
(S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

2004-08-25T01:11:00.000-04:00

It was everything they thought we wanted to hear, carefully choreographed, with packaged sound bites delivered by the party's intellectual elite. But their "me too" platform made the delegates wince. And draping themselves in the stars and stripes was neither becoming for their constituents or credible to the undecided voter.

Although their repeated refrain echoed "We can do better," there was no mention of the fact that: the unemployment rate today (@ 5.5%) is lower than it was in 1996 (6.2%); that the inflation rate today (@ 1.9%) is lower than it was in 1996 (2.6%); that mortgage rates today (@ 5.86%) are lower than they were in 1996 (7.81%); it was Bill Clinton who made "regime change" in Iraq the official US policy; and the Defense of Marriage Act, which Kerry voted against, was signed into law by Clinton.

Then came the finale, with John Kerry "reporting for duty." But after making his 4-month tour of duty in Viet Nam the center-piece of his campaign, Democratic nominee, Senator Kerry, had precious little to say during the convention about his anti-war activity or his liberal 20-year voting record since then. Instead he postured as a centrist by espousing conservative policy nuances and more high-brow campaign promises. Yet the stark differences remain between what candidate Kerry says and what Senator Kerry has done.

So this month we review the demands of the Faustian pact that all but required pure theater at the Democratic National Convention. We begin with "For John Kerry: No Memory, No Shame, No Bump," an insightful review of the "cosmetic convention" by Richard Davis. This is followed by "Why the Dems Will Lose," a prescient commentary by Michael Novak on why reacquiring power will remain elusive. Next we reveal why the left must continue thier charade in "Liberals Can't Level," by Thomas Sowell. And last but not least, we end with a contrasting piece that addresses "What it means to be a Republican," provided by the RNC web site.

Before signing away his soul to the devil in exchange for power, Faust, the hero of Medieval legend, expressed his indescribable discontent this way, "Two souls, alas, are dwelling in my breasts, and one is striving to forsake his brother." This same tempest rages within the heart of the Democratic Party today. Like Faust, who ultimately found redemption, we pray that our liberal opposition also listens to their better angels before it's too late.

Roy Tanner

For John Kerry: No Memory, No Shame, No Bump
By Richard Davis
August 4, 2004

Polls can some times renew your faith in your fellow citizens. The new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll on the presidential race is one of those times. Kerry not only didn't get the traditional popularity bump from the convention, he actually lost ground to Bush, an almost unheard of scenario. Other polls show a very slight Kerry bump, but if CNN says a liberal from their own party lost ground, that's credible enough for me.

Which also proves that the mainstream media once again got it all wrong. If you had watched any news outlet, including Fox, on Thursday or Friday you would have thought Kerry's speech rivaled the Gettysburg's Address in effectiveness, and that the convention had been an overwhelming success. Didn't the delegates all cheer like crazy? Journalists heard the applause and saw balloons, and that was the story they wanted. Brokaw, Rather and Jennings were positively orgasmic. Print media universally presented a glowing report. If Gallup had polled the media alone (not a bad idea, actually), Kerry would have had an amazing bump, and every news outlet would have led with that story beginning Sunday night.

But were journalists even paying attention? New York Times columnist David Brooks said he was initially impressed with Kerry's performance, then he looked at what Kerry actually said. "I should never have gone back and read the speech again," Brooks wrote in his column. "What an incoherent disaster. When you actually read for content, you see that the speech skirts almost every tough issue and comes out on both sides of every major concern." It's too much to expect today's journalists to listen for content. (How many of them have even bothered to read the speech? How many have the ability to read it critically?)

Only conservative pundits on the radio and the internet seemed to notice that the would-be emperor had forgotten a few clothes. Newt Gingrich called the speech "profoundly dishonest." Thomas Sowell talked in his column about the "camouflaging" of facts and "orchestrated disinformation." Several National Review writers trashed the speech, and bloggers emptied both barrels into the whole charade. (Imagine this campaign or life after 9/11 without the internet.)

The only question was how would viewers react? The Kerry campaign is built entirely with smoke and mirrors. It's cornerstone, one of the low points in American politics, has been the shameless effort to portray Kerry as a war hero who deserves to be elected for military service alone. Forget that he served just four months. Forget the war crimes he admits to committing. Forget the suspicious flesh wounds. Forget the lies and slander against his fellow soldiers. Forget the trashing of medals. Most of all, forget the atrocious voting record.

Are Americans really as stupid as Democrats think they are? This entire hero hypocrisy--and Kerry's handlers know this is pure theater and simply don't care--has only two cynical purposes, to bash Bush and deflect attention from Kerry's voting record on defense. Bring out more flags. Say "strength" as many times as possible. Surround yourself with veterans (the ones who aren't calling you a fake and a liar). Just don't mention the 30 years since you got that last scratch on your ass.

If nothing else, the convention was a nice set up for Hilary's 2008 rescue plan, which involves a defeat in November, a party in disarray and a white horse. The disarray shouldn't be a problem. Despite the masquerade party in Boston, Democrats are badly fractured, a party loosed from its center, controlled now by an uneasy coalition of fringe groups and far-left money. When Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter and Al Sharpton are your moral compasses, you're lost.

Democrats can only pretend to be a party of consensus by deliberately disguising themselves in public. Delegates were actually instructed to dissemble before the cameras, or at the very least to keep quite. Appear normal. Imagine how distasteful that flag-waving display truly was to most of the delegates in that hall. When you'll fake patriotism, which you've disparaged and shunned like leprosy for three years, you're a party with some ethical (and psychological) issues. Where were the Christian hymns? Why not parade in some non-aborted babies in red-white-and-blue diapers for the cameras?

The party's much-vaunted centrism is little more than memory and contrivance. And that spells trouble. If the hate and radicalism that motivate the fringe groups drive away the Democrat's predominately female base, its silent center, the party's over. That is, unless Hilary can rally the girls for one last hurrah. I'd like to see her ballot in November.

Rhetorically speaking, the convention exhibited all the eloquence of a junior high pep rally. Someone should explain what microphones do. Only Teresa managed a more sedated delivery, though no one has had the courage yet to ask her just what it was she was trying to say. Shove it, merci.

Angry excess is all this party has left. Preach against incivility in politics, lie about what you said moments later and then tell a polite questioner to "shove it." Apologize? For what? Let's only hope that someday all women will be able to say shove it and be called smart and well-informed like men. Now be a darling and run out to the limo and get my pills.

Democrats believe that calling their opponents hate-mongers actually demonstrates that they're just the opposite. They're civil. Ask why conservatives are hate-mongers and its doubtful you'll even get an answer. Thus Kerry responds to all criticism with name-calling. The questioner is just being negative and divisive. John Edwards tells the convention how much he opposes the "tired, old, hateful negative politics of the past." Such as? Michael Moore unleashes a sick tirade against Republican "hate-triots," who get up each morning "trying to figure out" which minority group they're going to screw. There's something very ugly taking hold of the left.

Of course, calling your opponent names is just one way to avoid addressing issues and your own shortcomings (it also plays into liberals' obsession with portraying themselves as victims). Since Democrats can't say aloud what they really believe, they resort to righteous indignation. Buy truckloads of flags and call yourself the party of security and defense. Who are they kidding? Demand better education, but just don't mention that liberal Democrats have had a literal stranglehold on American education for over 30 years. Now, a trillion dollars or so later, no parent, black or white, wants to send her children to their schools. Racism? Just reverse it and pontificate like MLK on steroids. Will black Democrats ever leave Selma? Can they even imagine anywhere else to go?

For all the volume, the convention was remarkably dispassionate. Not even Jesse Jackson could fire up the usual bombast. No one believed what they were saying. Think of the concerns closest to their hearts which they couldn't even mention: abortion, affirmative action, gun control, gay marriage, higher taxes, defense cuts, political correctness, open immigration, judicial activism, multiculturalism, welfare, etc. Those issue define Democrats, but they're no longer part of their public discourse. They can't be.

And that's the Democratic dilemma today. They can't say what they believe--and how dare you even ask!--and hiding what they think behind flags and balloons only works on some of the people some of the time. Apparently, by today's poll numbers, that time has run out.

Why the Dems Will Lose
And why they'll be disconsolate.

You know how Democrats hate Bush now? How will they hate him when they lose to him on November 2 by three or four percentage points?

One of the political commentators I admire most for his astuteness said yesterday that the paroxysm of hatred the Democrats have been indulging for the last six months is the worst American political delusion he has seen in his entire life.

What will it be like if after all this hatred, all this effort, all those millions upon millions of dollars spent to express disdain, contempt, and hate Bush wins again, flashes a victory symbol over his head, grins, strides around shaking hands, glows with exuberance and radiance?

For Democrats, losing is much worse than for Republicans. For Democrats, the purpose of democracy is to milk government for ever more abundant benefits. Republicans in principle believe in limited government, and thus in a certain way they do even better out of power than when they must exercise it. Democrats without power suffer much more. Democrats go listless, purposeless.

In a minority, Democrats are fairly useless creatures. In victory, they cultivate grand visions of benefits to be shaken from government largesse; defeat, however, freezes the core of their being. Democratic defeat defies the natural order. For them, history halts. What had been an onward rushing tide swirls round and round, becoming still.

So loss at any time (as in 2000) is almost inadmissible by Democrats. But a loss in 2004, particularly a solid loss, will be for them a disaster beyond imagination. Such recriminations there will be. Some will blame the "centrism" of the Kerry team, and the much-resented repression of the Left. Some will come to see the isolation in which the widespread paroxysms of hatred and contempt for George Bush blindly thrust them. Some will see that the core ideologies of the Left are faultily drawn in economics, their attraction to a kind of governmental centralization, and their antipathy to capitalism, the market, corporations, and job creators. They claim to love employees while hating their employers, a self-defeating cycle. In matters of culture, others will see that the left-wing's sexual ethic and religious sensibility are too far out of tune with the American people. Nonetheless, one can predict that both in economics and in culture, others will try to drive the party more leftward still.

In any case, it would be wise to get ready for the coming cataclysm.In 2004, I see six reasons why the Democratic goose is cooked:

1. No one, neither his colleagues nor his wife nor his supporters nor he himself, has anything good to say about John Kerry except that he served bravely in Vietnam. The nearly 30 years since then have generated few boasts on his part, few commendations from others, few successes anyone can seem to remember.

2. The Democratic elite sitting in convention cannot present themselves as they are to the American people, but must stifle their deepest feelings, be silent about their most passionate aims, and hide their turbulent loathing of George Bush Republicans (lest it frighten independents with its ferocity). The Democratic elite is saying as little as possible about same-sex marriage. And guns. And very little about abortion. And not a word about total withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, quite the opposite. Democratic elites do not want the people to know what they really think. On that ground, they fear they will lose.

3. Democrats must hide from the public what they truly think about evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Catholics. They express these thoughts mostly among themselves.

4. John Kerry looks sillier in the pale blue NASA rabbit suit than Michael Dukakis did in a tank.

5. The months of April, May, and June were so heavy with bad news for George Bush -- the huge Sorosian expenditures on anti-Bush ads came at him in torrents -- and still he held even with Kerry in the polls. It is hard not to believe that there will be at least a slight change in the roaring winds. When it comes (and the change is already underway), it is bound to push Bush's sails steadily ahead as the weeks roll on.

6. The worst lies told by the Democrats about Bush -- those of Joe Wilson, Michael Moore, and others, saying that Bush lied about Iraq -- have already been proven wrong by the 9/11 Commission (which was supposed to blow Bush out of the water just before the election, but ended up destroying his worst calumniators). These lies were also proven wrong by the British inquiry. Even the Kerry Convention in Boston ended up taking the Bush strategic line in Iraq, except for one thing: Kerry is wistful about the probability of persuading France and Germany to bear some burden on behalf of liberty in Iraq. Good luck! God knows, Bush and Colin Powell tried.

Finally, there is the matter of faith, even of the sort Tom Paine showed in 1776. Paine was no Christian, but he did believe that God had created this vast and splendid universe in order to share His friendship with free women and free men, and for this reason the Creator put freedom at the core of things. Tom Paine had no tolerance for the Bible, and less for Biblical fundamentalists, but he was not so much an atheist, he wrote, as to believe that the Almighty Who made the universe for liberty would allow the cause of people willing to die for it to come to naught. Paine couldn't bring himself to believe that God would favor George III.

In that same spirit, I find it hard to believe that the Creator who gave us liberty will ignore President Bush's willingness to sacrifice his own presidency for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq -- their 50 million citizens, and perhaps their progeny for ages to come. A kind of cosmic justice (which does not always materialize, I recognize) calls for vindication. Especially when the president has been so unfairly calumniated by his foes, domestic and foreign.

In accepting the nomination of his party Thursday night, John Kerry could not quite bring himself to give both the president and the volunteer military who performed so well some credit for this great and significant advance for human liberty. The theme of liberty in the Muslim world belongs to George Bush. It was he who named liberty the only real alternative to terrorism.

"With a firm reliance on Divine Providence," to cite our forebears once again, Bush has publicly held that one cannot fight terrorism merely by killing terrorists. One must provide an alternative of liberty, prosperity, and opportunity -- one must labor to build free societies where they do not now exist. Liberty works. I think Bush will win because these are the truths Americans hold.

Bush believes these truths. At this moment, the Democrats (who used to believe them, nobly so) do not even see their relevance. Kerry spoke well about patriotism, the international leadership of America, and liberty -- but he seems willfully blind to the relevance of these beautiful ideals to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism. For such ideals and purposes some 900 young Americans of this generation have laid down their lives. They will be thanked by generations yet unborn.

So will their commander-in-chief.

Michael Novak is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. Novak's own website is http://www.michaelnovak.net/.

Liberals can't level
Thomas Sowell
August 8, 2004

Sometimes little things can tell you about big things.

While Senator John Kerry and his running-mate Senator John Edwards were recently being photographed at lunchtime at Wendy's, to show what regular guys they are, their real lunch was from a local yacht club, which is more their speed in real life.

There is nothing wrong with eating lunch from or at a yacht club. What is wrong is being phony -- and thinking that the American people need to be conned.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected President four times while never pretending to be anything other than what he was, a born member of the elite class. Neither he nor the American voters required any such charade as that of Kerry and Edwards.

A certain amount of fraud creeps into many political campaigns but fraud is absolutely central to the Kerry campaign. Above all, his campaign must camouflage or deny the central fact of Senator Kerry's political career -- that he has been the most liberal member of the United States Senate.

Says who? Says Americans for Democratic Action, a leading liberal organization for more than half a century. The ADA keeps tabs on Congressional voting and ranks Senators on their votes for liberal causes, so as to inform ADA's members as to who are their strongest supporters.

Senator Kerry came in number one on liberal voting in the Senate, ranking above Ted Kennedy. Senator John Edwards likewise had an even more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy. These guys are on the far left of a liberal party.

What does that mean in concrete terms?

Among other things, it means racial quotas, higher taxes, weakening the military, and -- perhaps most significant of all -- appointing liberal judges who will spend decades finding reasons to turn criminals loose and allowing frivolous lawsuits that drive up prices to consumers and destroy businesses and jobs.

You can't run on that platform and win a national election. Moreover, you cannot frankly state the underlying assumptions behind the liberal vision of the world, such as the notion that the liberal anointed need to impose their superior vision on the masses.

Politically, you have to pretend to be one of the people, even though the whole basis of your vision is that you are vastly superior to the people. Even when you are a pompous elitist who looks down on the average American, you have to project a political image as a regular guy by being photographed with a baseball bat or a hunting rifle in your hand -- or eating at Wendy's.

Disinformation is where it's at, if you are a liberal. Weakness on military defense, for example, has to be camouflaged by constantly using words like "strong," "strength," " tough" and the like, while clenching your fist and using a bombastic tone.

In a memorable scene near the end of "The Wizard of Oz," the wizard -- after being exposed as a fraud -- admits that he cannot give Dorothy's friends what they want, namely courage, a brain, and a heart. But he presents them with substitutes for all these things.

That is what Kerry and Edwards must do to have a chance at winning this year's election. They must come up with substitutes for reality.

In a sense, it is unfair to expect liberals to talk straight to the public because politically it is not a level playing field.

Conservatives can get elected to all sorts of offices, including President of the United States, while saying that they are conservative. But there are far fewer places where a liberal can get elected saying that he or she is a liberal -- and certainly not elected President of the United States with that label.

Voters have seen the results of liberalism over the years and don't like what they have seen. The last openly liberal candidate who was elected President was Lyndon Johnson, 40 years ago. The last Democratic candidate who even admitted to being a liberal was Walter Mondale, 16 years ago -- and he was buried in a landslide.

So don't look for liberal candidates to admit being liberals, when the Presidency is on the line. They are not about to commit political suicide. People in the media consider it an "attack" even to call candidates liberals -- or to call the media liberal.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc

What it means to be a Republican

"In all these days of promise and days of reckoning, we can be confident. In a whirlwind of change and hope and peril, our faith is sure, our resolve is firm, and our union is strong." President George W. Bush

I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

2004-07-17T03:46:00.000-04:00

American cyclist, Lance Armstrong just won a record-setting 6th consecutive Tour de France. What's most inspiring about this 32-year old athlete, is that just 8-years ago he was battling for his life, undergoing surgery and chemotherapy for cancer. How did he recover to accomplish such a feat? He started by believing that he could.

Individuals, with courage born of conviction, have always made a difference. Who comes to mind (for you) when I make that statement? Maybe a national leader or a conquering hero? Perhaps a patriot, pioneer, pastor, public servant, or parent? Or, come to think of it, a person just like...you or me.

Do you recall the picture of that lone Chinese man who faced-down a line of tanks in Beijing? Last month marked the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square uprising. Although the movement was violently suppressed after only a 7-week occupation, this image of individual conviction remains symbolic of the winds of change sweeping China today. What kind of person steps into harm's way? Someone who believes in a cause.

In every generation, in every corner of the globe, history is replete with examples of courageous individuals, who against all odds, found the determination to stand-up for what they believed in. And in the process of doing so, they inspire us to make a difference. This month we look back on three "individuals of conviction" of a different sort, whose lives continue to advance the cause of righteousness and traditional values for our generation.

We start with President Ronald Reagan's remarks at an ecumenical Prayer Breakfast in 1984. While much has already been written that eulogized the accomplishments of this great conservative leader, few accounts are more telling of what underpinned his principled conviction, than glimpses of his strong faith in God. As reflected in his remarks, this servant of the people was committed "To act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly" (Mic 6:8) with the Almighty.

We follow with a letter from Dr. James Dobson, which spells-out nine key issues that will shape America's future. For decades this champion of traditional family values, has demonstrated the conviction of character that could only flow from someone with a deep sense of trust in the person, principles, and precepts of God. His prescient discussion of "America's Choices" was written before the 2000 election, and is included here now to demonstrate the wisdom of his clarion call then -- for defending traditional family values.

Finally, we review the prayer of Minister Joe Wright, given in the Kansas Senate opening session last year. His petition of the Almighty, on behalf of those who mean to govern with wisdom, is exemplary of the convictions shared by an untold numbers of conservative "prayer warriors" who intercede for their nation. The Reverend's prayer precedes a review of demographic information on the "collective" individual voice of Evangelical Christians, who together comprise 23 percent of the American population, and constitute a growing influence in American politics and culture.

And what will be the collective effect of these conservative "individual" influences today? Would you like to guess what happens when you combine an unrelenting erosion of decency, an obstructionist minority and an activist judiciary, in an election year? Most likely we'll see a backlash from those who hold traditional values -- tantamount to a conservative "reawakening" in America.

Like the sleeping giant in Gulliver's Travels, the slumbering "moral majority" seems to have shaken-off their fog and spoken-up in a united fashion on everything from defense of marriage to demand for movie performances like the Passion of Christ. What's especially troubling for the Left is the bond that's forming between previously factious people of faith.

If this results in a wider populist movement, uniting diverse people of faith over these issues, we may well have reached the "critical mass" necessary for effecting positive change in this country -- not to mention determining the outcome of the 2004 election.

Roy Tanner

President Reagan's Remarks at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast in Dallas, Texas
(August 23, 1984)

"Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, very much...These past few weeks it seems that we've all been hearing a lot of talk about religion and its role in politics, religion and its place in the political life of the Nation. And I think it's appropriate today, at a prayer breakfast for 17,000 citizens in the State of Texas during a great political convention, that this issue be addressed.

I don't speak as a theologian or a scholar, only as one who's lived a little more than his threescore ten -- which has been a source of annoyance to some -- [laughter] -- and as one who has been active in the political life of the Nation for roughly four decades and now who's served the past 3-years in our highest office. I speak, I think I can say, as one who has seen much, who has loved his country, and who's seen it change in many ways.

I believe that faith and religion play a critical role in the political life of our nation -- and always has -- and that the church -- and by that I mean all churches, all denominations -- has had a strong influence on the state. And this has worked to our benefit as a nation.

Those who created our country -- the Founding Fathers and Mothers -- understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion.

The Mayflower Compact began with the words, "In the name of God, amen.'' The Declaration of Independence appeals to "Nature's God'' and the "Creator'' and "the Supreme Judge of the world.'' Congress was given a chaplain, and the oaths of office are oaths before God.

James Madison in the Federalist Papers admitted that in the creation of our Republic he perceived the hand of the Almighty. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, warned that we must never forget the God from whom our blessings flowed.

George Washington referred to religion's profound and unsurpassed place in the heart of our nation quite directly in his Farewell Address in 1796. Seven years earlier, France had erected a government that was intended to be purely secular. This new government would be grounded on reason rather than the law of God. By 1796 the French Revolution had known the Reign of Terror.

And Washington voiced reservations about the idea that there could be a wise policy without a firm moral and religious foundation. He said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man (call himself a patriot) who (would) labour to subvert these...finest duties of men and citizens. The mere Politician...(and) the pious man ought to respect and to cherish (religion and morality).'' And he added, "... let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.''

I believe that George Washington knew the City of Man cannot survive without the City of God, that the Visible City will perish without the Invisible City.

Religion played not only a strong role in our national life; it played a positive role. The abolitionist movement was at heart a moral and religious movement; so was the modern civil rights struggle. And throughout this time, the state was tolerant of religious belief, expression, and practice. Society, too, was tolerant.

But in the 1960's this began to change. We began to make great steps toward secularizing our nation and removing religion from its honored place.

In 1962 the Supreme Court in the New York prayer case banned the compulsory saying of prayers. In 1963 the Court banned the reading of the Bible in our public schools. From that point on, the courts pushed the meaning of the ruling ever outward, so that now our children are not allowed voluntary prayer. We even had to pass a law -- we passed a special law in the Congress just a few weeks ago to allow student prayer groups the same access to schoolrooms after classes that a young Marxist society, for example, would already enjoy with no opposition.

The 1962 decision opened the way to a flood of similar suits. Once religion had been made vulnerable, a series of assaults were made in one court after another, on one issue after another. Cases were started to argue against tax-exempt status for churches. Suits were brought to abolish the words ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance and to remove ``In God We Trust'' from public documents and from our currency.

Today there are those who are fighting to make sure voluntary prayer is not returned to the classrooms. And the frustrating thing for the great majority of Americans who support and understand the special importance of religion in the national life -- the frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom, and openmindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? [Applause] They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives.

If all the children of our country studied together all of the many religions in our country, wouldn't they learn greater tolerance of each other's beliefs? If children prayed together, would they not understand what they have in common, and would this not, indeed, bring them closer, and is this not to be desired? So, I submit to you that those who claim to be fighting for tolerance on this issue may not be tolerant at all.

When John Kennedy was running for President in 1960, he said that his church would not dictate his Presidency any more than he would speak for his church. Just so, and proper. But John Kennedy was speaking in an America in which the role of religion -- and by that I mean the role of all churches -- was secure. Abortion was not a political issue. Prayer was not a political issue. The right of church schools to operate was not a political issue. And it was broadly acknowledged that religious leaders had a right and a duty to speak out on the issues of the day. They held a place of respect, and a politician who spoke to or of them with a lack of respect would not long survive in the political arena.

It was acknowledged then that religion held a special place, occupied a special territory in the hearts of the citizenry. The climate has changed greatly since then. And since it has, it logically follows that religion needs defenders against those who care only for the interests of the state.

There are, these days, many questions on which religious leaders are obliged to offer their moral and theological guidance, and such guidance is a good and necessary thing. To know how a church and its members feel on a public issue expands the parameters of debate. It does not narrow the debate; it expands it.

The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.

A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens; the more decent the citizens, the more decent the state. If you practice a religion, whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or guided by some other faith, then your private life will be influenced by a sense of moral obligation, and so, too, will your public life. One affects the other. The churches of America do not exist by the grace of the state; the churches of America are not mere citizens of the state. The churches of America exist apart; they have their own vantage point, their own authority. Religion is its own realm; it makes its own claims.

We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions.

I submit to you that the tolerant society is open to and encouraging of all religions. And this does not weaken us; it strengthens us, it makes us strong. You know, if we look back through history to all those great civilizations, those great nations that rose up to even world dominance and then deteriorated, declined, and fell, we find they all had one thing in common. One of the significant forerunners of their fall was their turning away from their God or gods.

Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

If I could just make a personal statement of my own -- in these 3-years I have understood and known better than ever before the words of Lincoln, when he said that he would be the greatest fool on this footstool called Earth if he ever thought that for one moment he could perform the duties of that office without help from One who is stronger than all.

I thank you, thank you for inviting us here today. Thank you for your kindness and your patience. May God keep you, and may we, all of us, keep God.

Thank you."

Dr. James Dobson Discusses America's Choices (circa 2000)

Nine Key Issues That Will Shape Our Future

On the eve of the new millennium, America stands at a crossroads. The events of the coming months will heavily influence the course of our country and our culture in coming years. For Christians, the stakes have never been higher. In this document I address nine of the most critical issues facing our nation. Each is vital to our collective moral health. I have grouped issues in related categories and attempted to provide an overarching biblical perspective, grounded in a Christian worldview, for each category. In addition, I offer a brief cultural survey of every issue as well as an assessment of what is at stake for the future.

The Sanctity of Human Life

Upholding and defending the unconditional value of each human life is a core principle at Focus on the Family. We believe that human life is of inestimable worth and significance in all its dimensions from conception to the grave. In recent years our nation has watched the gradual erosion of this foundational ethic to the point that innocent human life, created in the sacred image of God, is now viewed as disposable at both ends of life's spectrum. The individuals elected to lead our nation over the next several years will have a tremendous impact on these life issues' either to rebuild the foundational appreciation for human life or push the culture further off the ledge of death.

Abortion remains the single most critical moral issue of our day, as it has for the last 27 years. The number of dead and wounded mounts daily. Some 35 million unborn children have been legally killed since the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973.(1) Mingled with the dead babies are their often-hurting mothers, many of whom suffer deep, long-lasting physical, emotional and psychological scars from making their legal "choice" to destroy their own flesh and blood. One reason the SS System is insolvent, is because the next generation of taxpayers has been eliminated.

Some Christians have lost heart and focused their attention away from the abortion fight. We cannot abandon these little ones and their desperate mothers. A nation that wantonly sacrifices its youngest members is in danger of imminent judgment by a holy and righteous God. We must not allow our hearts to grow weary in this battle nor our ears to become dulled to the silent cries of these precious babies.

President Clinton once said that he wanted to make abortion "safe, legal and rare."(2) It is obvious now that he had no intention of honoring that pledge. In fact, twice he has vetoed an effort by Congress to ban the hideous partial-birth abortion procedure.(3) Lest I need to remind you, this practice involves partially delivering a baby, feet first, until only her head remains in the birth canal. Then, an abortionist forces sharp scissors into the back of her skull, removes the brains and collapses the head to deliver a dead child. This brutal act is committed against viable babies who can survive outside the womb. Retiring Democratic U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan compared it to infanticide.(4) Experts in maternal health testified before Congress that this procedure is never medically necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.(5)

It is tragic that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court could not (or would not) comprehend these truths when it declared Nebraska's state ban on partial-birth abortions unconstitutional in June.(6) Despite this ruling, we should urge the next President and Congress to make passage of a federal ban to prohibit this procedure a top priority. We cannot give up on attempts to pass a meaningful and successful ban of this barbaric and unnecessary act.

The incoming administration and Congress also will have an opportunity to defend innocent life in other areas where the unborn are targeted for inhuman practices. Will they oppose and work to ban federal funding for research that destroys human embryos for the purpose of stem-cell experiments, or will they declare open season on these tiny babies under the auspices of "medical advancement"? Will they use the power of their offices to speak out against the U.S. distribution of the abortion drug RU-486, or will they encourage even more abortions by promoting its use?

Before leaving this fundamental issue, I must address one falsehood that is repeatedly conveyed by a largely pro-abortion media, that it is political suicide to support the right to life. The truth is, Americans have been moving in a more pro-life direction every year.(7) Seventy-one percent of Americans support greater restrictions on abortion.(8) In fact, a majority of American women now want abortion made illegal, or legal only in the rare circumstances of rape, incest or to save the mother's life.(9) Two-thirds of Americans support a ban on partial-birth abortion.(10) And, among voters for whom abortion is a key issue, pro-lifers outnumber abortion advocates by a significant margin.(11)

Physician-Assisted Suicide

A quarter century after Roe vs. Wade, advocates of radical and unrestrained abortion rights have trained their guns on the other end of life. The elderly, infirm and disabled now face a future where their lives are endangered by the encroaching philosophy that less-than-"perfect" life is unworthy of living" regardless of whether that person wants to live.

They have cast the argument in terms of personal autonomy "the right of an individual to determine his own future" to control his own life. But as with abortion, that is a perversion of the debate. It is not about "personal autonomy." It is, instead, about a crippling philosophy and one person killing another.

The state of Oregon has legalized physician-assisted suicide, and Maine voters face the question on their ballot in November. (Fortunately, three other states have rejected similar initiatives at the polls.) Within just two years of legalization, Oregon already has provided lethal drugs to at least one patient who was merely depressed and another who was of questionable competence.(12) There is evidence of other patients traveling from physician to physician "doctor-shopping" until they locate one who would help them kill themselves, even if their qualifications under the law were questionable.(13) In another case, medical personnel described a daughter as "coercive" in encouraging her mother to an early grave, yet the patient was still given deadly medicine.(14)

The so-called "safeguards" in laws such as Oregon's do not work. Look at what has happened in the Netherlands, where doctors have been allowed to practice physician-assisted suicide for more than a decade, as long as the act is "voluntary" on the part of the patient. Yet, two in-depth Dutch government reports found that more than one-quarter of euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands were "without the explicit consent of the patient."(15)

The next President and Congress could effectively stop state-sanctioned medical suicide in all 50 states by passing and signing into law legislation such as the "Pain Relief Promotion Act." This bill would make it illegal to use controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia, overriding any state laws to the contrary.

Sexuality

Sex is a gift from God. It is designed for the physical, emotional and spiritual uniting of a man and woman exclusively in the context of a lifelong committed marital relationship. The apostle Paul even implies that the sexual union of a husband and wife helps us to understand Christ's great love for the church. Sexual expression outside the confines of marriage cheapens God's gift and subverts His perfect design. Whenever the physical acts of sex (or even images associated with sex) are separated from the relational context God intended, they lead to heartache, disappointment and pain.

Homosexuality

Homosexuality has become the cause du jour of those who seek to undermine the family. Though homosexuals comprise only 2-3 percent of the population,(16) they exert incredible influence over the political arena. Abetted by a pro-homosexual news and entertainment media, the radical gay activists' assault on morality has reached a fever pitch. This spring, homosexuals achieved a form of "gay marriage" in Vermont,(17) and are now pushing for recognition of same-sex unions in the other 49 states.

Congress is considering homosexual "hate crimes" legislation that would set up special classes of victims based on sexual behavior. Under such a law, some crimes committed against heterosexuals would be punished less severely than the same crimes against homosexuals.

Among the other legislative items facing the new President and incoming Congress will be the question of whether to reverse the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forces the military to allow practicing homosexuals. In addition, we may be faced with the prospect of federal legislation that would mandate special rights for homosexuals in the workplace.

Sex Education

The federal government continues to funnel $500 million per year into "safe sex" programs(18) that encourage teens to be sexually active, and to suffer the physical and emotional consequences. On the bright side, a handful of dedicated conservatives in Congress succeeded in establishing the Title V abstinence education program, which provides $50 million per year to states to promote sexual abstinence until marriage. Even so, proponents of "safe sex" have conspired with their allies in government to divert part of this relative pittance to such things as ice hockey clubs and even Planned Parenthood affiliates!(19)

Nevertheless, the abstinence message is taking hold. The birthrate among teen girls declined from 6.2 percent in 1991 to less than 5 percent in 1999, the lowest rate in 60 years.(20) Also in the last decade, the abortion rate among teens has dropped,(21) while the percentage of teens who are abstinent is increasing.(22)

Funding for Title V expires in 2002. This program should not only be extended, but funding from the failed "safe sex" initiatives should be diverted to these programs that actually protect teens. States should also be made to comply with the intent of the law, ensuring that only true abstinence-based organizations receive these funds. Further, faith-based organizations should be eligible for Title V money.

Finally, the President should remove "safe sex" advocates from key health department positions. His appointments to the posts of the Secretary of Health, the Surgeon General and the head of the Centers for Disease Control should adhere to the philosophy that abstinence is the only fool-proof way of saving our teens from the trauma of STDs, abortion and emotional despair.

Pornography

It has been 14 years since I served on the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. For a few years after that commission, our government made tremendous strides in the war against pornography. However, the rapid growth of the Internet combined with an incredible level of neglect from the Clinton administration has inspired a new boom in this degrading and dehumanizing industry.

Today, pornography invades even the quiet corners of our libraries and homes. The American Library Association has become a stalwart promoter of children's access to pornography under the guise of the First Amendment.

Our friends at the Family Research Council recently released a study documenting more than 2,000 reports of children and adults viewing pornography online in the public library.(23) A disturbing survey conducted for the Center for Missing and Exploited Children indicates that one out of every four children (ages 10 to 17) were exposed to unwanted pornography over the Internet last year.(24)

The Janet Reno-led Justice Department refuses to enforce laws that the Congress passed (and the Supreme Court affirmed) to target the worst types of illegal pornography, bestiality, torture and other violent images. At a congressional hearing on this issue, former Department of Justice official Robert Flores noted that in the past four years, not a single Internet-based obscenity case has been brought by the Clinton administration.(25)

The next President must order the Justice Department to vigorously enforce laws against illegal pornography. Furthermore, Congress and the President must work together to pass legislation that protects children from harmful sexual images online and, if necessary, the President must be willing to defend that legislation against activist judges. Lastly, any school or library receiving federal money for Internet access should be required to filter pornography. (As of this writing, Congress has passed such a bill which President Clinton has yet to sign.)

Marriage and Family

God instituted marriage as the foundational building block of society. Further, the bond between a husband and a wife is designed to reflect Christ's relationship with His church. Children proceed from the marital union as a tangible expression of the couple's love for one another. Parents are charged by God with the primary responsibility for raising, nurturing and instilling a love for God and others in their offspring. Any governmental policy that impedes or ignores this truth undermines God's perfect design for the family.

Taxing Families

Three decades after our nation's disastrous experiment with no-fault divorce, both liberal and conservative scholars now agree that strong married families are the most important factor in raising healthy children.(26) Yet, our tax code is decidedly hostile to American families. Nowhere is this more evident than in the marriage penalty tax. Twenty-five million married couples in this country pay an average of $1,400 more in taxes each year simply because they are married.(27) To its credit, Congress attempted to remedy the problem this summer, but President Clinton inexplicably vetoed the legislation.(28)

Repealing the marriage tax is important symbolically in conveying that our elected leaders value the institution of marriage. For millions of families just scraping to get by, it also would provide a very tangible and significant financial boost. Couples who choose to care for their children in the home are likewise penalized. Parents who place their children in day care receive tax breaks that are subsidized by those who care for their children at home. This not only encourages families to transfer child-rearing responsibilities to a third party, it is also a gross injustice. Married couples with only one income earn $25,000 less each year on average than do two-earner couples.(29) These one-income couples deserve at least the same tax breaks as households with two incomes.

Finally, Congress and the President should expand the child tax credit. Congress took an encouraging first step in 1997 bypassing a $500 per-child credit.(30) Yet, this amount is but a drop in the bucket compared to the escalating costs of raising, educating and caring for children in the 21st century. Since 1955, the tax burden has ballooned from 18 percent to about 38 percent of the typical American family's income(31), more than the average family spends on food, housing, clothing and transportation combined.(32)

Education

Polls tell us that education is the most important issue among all voters.(33) Many of our schools are besieged by abysmal academic performance, violence, homosexual propaganda, alcohol, drugs, sexual promiscuity, moral relativism (under theguise of multiculturalism), revisionist history and amoral sex education, among other things. Typically, the "solution" offered by politicians is more money or new federal programs. These are not the answer. The answer is to empower parents. Mothers and fathers have been entrusted by God with the task of directing their children's education. It is they who best understand their children's unique personalities and learning requirements.

Parents, therefore, should be enabled to choose the educational option that best suits their children's needs. For most parents, and especially those with low and moderate incomes, this dream is presently unattainable. The next President and Congress will have the opportunity to break the stranglehold of the teachers' unions and entrenched bureaucracies and lead the fight to offer parents real choice in education.

They can also do much to improve the situation in our public schools. Their first objective should be to remove hindrances imposed by federal bureaucrats. They should resist the temptation to create even more federal education programs, and limit in some cases, or cut completely, funding for existing ones. Teachers, school boards and local education officials are far better positioned and equipped to make decisions in the best interests of students in their community. They should be enabled to do so.

Government

One of Focus on the Family's five guiding principles regards the proper relationship between the institutions of the church, family and government. In recent years, government has begun to usurp the authority of the other two institutions, or to step outside its "sphere of sovereignty," as Dutch statesman and theologian Abraham Kuyper described the relationship. According to Romans 13, government's God-ordained function is to promote justice, encourage righteousness, and suppress evil.

Religious Freedom

As Christians we should be deeply concerned about the escalating hostility and even violence toward religious believers in many corners of the world. In 1999, an estimated 166,000 persons were martyred for their faith worldwide.(34) In Sudan, the radical Islamic regime has undertaken a ruthless campaign of bombings, torture and murder against Christians and others of non-Islamic faith.(35) Christians also face intense persecution in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India and Russia.(36) Perhaps the worst offender is China, where Christians are prohibited from even meeting together. Violators regularly receive lengthy prison or labor camp sentences simply for exercising their beliefs.(37)

This year, with President Clinton's heavy-handed lobbying, the House of Representatives voted to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China despite its vicious persecution of religious believers. (As of this writing, a Senate vote is pending.) We have turned our backs on our Christian brothers and sisters and given a green light to China's Communist leaders to continue their brutal oppression of Christians. The next President and Congress can stand boldly for religious freedom by speaking out against religious persecution and applying powerful economic sanctions against repressive regimes. Or they can capitulate to the almighty dollar and condemn tens of thousands more Christians and other religious believers to unspeakable suffering and injustice.

Here in the United States, our own government has demonstrated a growing antagonism against religion in a nation that was founded to allow the free exercise of religious beliefs. Courts regularly rule against any form of religious expression, no matter how benign. As I mentioned in my September letter, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in April struck down the 40-year-old state motto of Ohio, "With God, all things are possible."(38)

One positive development, however, is the emerging movement to further enable faith-based organizations to address a variety of social ills. I would urge the next President and Congress to strongly support such "charitable choice" programs, provided they ensure the religious integrity of the organizations is fully safeguarded in matters such as hiring.

Supreme Court Appointments

The Supreme Court sank to new depths this year when it struck down the Nebraska law that banned partial-birth abortions. Unfortunately, that was only the beginning. Other lowlights from the court included:
· Allowing cable TV companies to transmit pornographic channels into homes that do not want it;(39)
· Stripping First Amendment rights from pro-life counselors outside abortion clinics;(40)
· Outlawing student-led prayer at high school football games;(41) and
· Requiring college students to fund groups they morally oppose.(42)
· The Court also came within one vote of forcing the Boy Scouts to allow homosexual leaders.(43)

These "robed masters," with a few notable exceptions (particularly Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas), have taken it upon themselves to redraw the Constitution according to their own whims. Fortunately, as many as four of the current justices are expected to retire in the next few years. Thus the new President and the Senate, which confirms his appointments, may have the ability to shape the court for decades to come. Even replacing one justice could have a monumental impact on the laws of our land. In the most recent court term, 20 of the court's 73 signed decisions were decided by a single vote.(44) One changed vote would have upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion, or required the Boy Scouts to permit homosexual leaders.

It is imperative that these new judicial appointees respect the Constitution, and especially that they uphold the rights to life, religious liberty and freedom of speech. If, instead, even more justices are appointed who view the Constitution as irrelevant and who hold "the laws of nature's God" in contempt, this country will inevitably slide into even greater depths of depravity and tyranny.

Endnotes:
1. Centers for Disease Control, "Abortion Surveillance Summaries," 8 August 1997 and 7 January 2000 (Includes estimate of 1.2 million abortions per year from 1998-2000).
2. "Clinton Wows Many Delegates with Looks, Views," Orlando Sentinel, 15 December 1991, p. A14.
3. Sandra Sobieraj, "Clinton Vetoes Ban on Late-Term Abortions," Associated Press, 10 October 1997.
4. "Moynihan Opposes Partial-Birth Abortion," Times Union (Albany, N.Y.), 12 May 1996, p. A8.
5. Congressional Briefing on partial-birth abortion presented by Physicians, Ad-hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT), Washington, D.C., 24 July1996.
6. Stenberg vs. Carhart (28 June 2000).
7. Ramesh Ponnuru, "Not Dead Yet: The Pro-Life Movement Is Winning," National Review, 17 May 1999.
8. Richard Benedetto, "Abortion Poll Reflects Public's Deep Divisions," USA Today, 5 May 1999, p. 15A.
9. Center for Gender Equality, "As Religions Increase Political Involvement, New National Survey Finds Women Are Becoming Both More Religious and More Conservative," 27 January 1999.
10. Lydia Saad, "Americans Hold Mixed Views on Miranda Rights; Poll Reviews Attitudes Toward Variety of Supreme Court Cases in the News," Gallup Organization, 28 June 2000.
11. Wirthlin Worldwide, "1998 Post-Election Survey," Prepared for National Right to Life, 4 November 1998. See also National Right to Life Committee, Inc., "The Pro-Life Advantage," (undated).
12. E. Hoover and G.K. Hill, "Two die using suicide law," [Portland] Oregonian, 25 March 1998; E.H. Barnett, "Is Mom Capable of Choosing to Die?" [Portland] Oregonian, 16 October 1999.
13. D. Gianelli, "Praise, Criticism Follow Oregon's First Reported Assisted Suicide," American Medical News, 13 April 1998.
14. Barnett, op. cit.
15. P.J. van der Maas, G. van der Wal, I Haverkate, et al., "Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide, and Other Medical Practices Involving the End of Life in the Netherlands, 1990-1995," New England Journal of Medicine, 335, pp. 1699-1705; P.J. van der Maas, J.J.M. van Delden, L. Pijenborg, Euthanasia and Other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life (Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1992).
16. R. Michael, J. Gagnon, E. Laumann, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1994), pp. 175-177; Tom W. Smith, "American Sexual Behavior: Trends, Socio-Demographic Differences, and Risk Behavior," National Opinion Research Center, GSS Topical Report No. 25, December 1998, p. 50.
17. Ross Sneyd, "Vermont Governor Signs Bill Creating Marriage-Like "Civil Unions,"" Associated Press, 26 April 2000.
18. "The Implementation of the Abstinence Education Provisions in the Welfare Reform Act," Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, 25 September 1998, pp. 178-179.
19. See for instance, Application For Grant For Abstinence Education Funds from Family Support Center to State of Utah Department of Health, 1 January 1998-30 September 1998.
20. "New CDC Birth Report Shows Teen Birth Rates Continue to Drop," National Center for Health Statistics, 8 August 2000; "Births: Preliminary Data for 1999," National Vital Statistics Reports, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 8 August 2000.
21. "Legal Abortion Ratios, According to Selected Patient Characteristics: United States, Selected Years 1973-97," Health, United States, 2000, Centers for Disease Control, p. 144; "Abortion SurveillanceUnited States, 1996," MMWR Weekly, 30 July 1999.
22. "Fact Sheet: Youth Risk Behavior Trends," Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, available at http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/yrbs/trend.htm.
23. David Burt, "Dangerous Access 2000 Edition: Uncovering Internet Pornography in America's Libraries," Family Research Council, 2000.
24. Crimes Against Children Research Center, "Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation's Youth," June 2000.
25. "Prepared Statement of Mr. Robert Flores at Oversight Hearing on Obscene Material Available via the Internet," Subcommittee on Telecommunications Trade & Consumer Protection, 23 May 2000.
26. See, for instance, "The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles," Institute for American Values, 2000.
27. Federal News Service, "New Conference with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Other Republicans; Subject: Marriage Penalty Tax Relief," 20 July 2000.
28. Pamela Hess, "Clinton Vetoes Marriage Penalty Tax," United Press International, 5 August 2000.
29. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1999 (119th edition), Washington, D.C., 1999, p. 480.
30. "Key Features of Major Tax Bills Since 1981," Associated Press, 6 August 1997.
31. "New Study Profiles Total Tax Burden of Median American Family," Tax Foundation, 9 March 2000.
32. Daniel J. Mitchell, "Time for Lower Income Tax Rates: The Historical Case for Supply-Side Economics," Heritage Foundation, 19 February 1999.
33. The Gallup Poll, Election 2000, CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, July 25-26, see: www.gallup.com/election2000/ issues.htm; Dan Balzana Richard Morin, "Education Voters' Pose A Tough Test," Washington Post, 30 June 2000, p. A1.
34. David C. Barrett, "Annual Statistical Table on Global Missions: 2000," International Bulletin of Missionary Research, January 2000.
35. Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, 1 May 2000; David Saperstein, "Commissioner's Opening Remarks of Issuance of First Annual Report [of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom]," 1 May 2000.
36. International Christian Concern, "Prayer Points," June 2000; Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, op. cit.
37. "Report: China Arrests Christians," Associated Press, 23 August 2000; Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, op. cit; Saperstein, op. cit.
38. "Court Throws Out Ohio State Motto," Associated Press, 26 April 2000.
39. United States vs. Playboy (22 May 2000).
40. Hill vs. Colorado (28 June 2000).
41. Santa Fe School District vs. Doe (19 June 2000).
42. Board of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin System vs. Southworth (22 March 2000).
43. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (28 June, 2000).
44. Gerald F. Seib and Jackie Calmes, "Where Gore and Bush Diverge on the Issues Has Become Critical," Wall Street Journal, 28 July 2000, p. A1.

Copyright © 2000 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.

Prayer given in Kansas at the opening session of their Senate.

When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:

"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and call it Pluralism. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent to direct us to the center of Your will and to openly ask these things in the name of Your Son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen!"

The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest...In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright ispastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively.

The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea. Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, "The Rest of the Story," and received a larger response to this program than anyother hehas ever aired. With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called "one nation under God."

Evangelicals in America

As 23 percent of the American population, white evangelicals are an important part of the American mainstream whose collective voice is growing louder both in politics and in culture. In many respects, white evangelicals look like other Americans. They live all over the country, they are found in cities and small towns alike, they have friends outside of their churches, and a majority have at least some college education. They share concerns with the rest of the country about the cost of healthcare and having a secure retirement. Yet white evangelicals share a set of strongly-held beliefs about the role of religion in daily life, and they incorporate a set of religious behaviors based on these beliefs into their daily lives. It is these beliefs and behaviors that set them apart religiously and politically from the rest of the country.[1]

Main Findings

White evangelicals hold a conservative set of religious beliefs about the interpretation of the Bible and salvation from personal faith alone. They are also deeply committed to their religious imperative to spread their faith.

White evangelicals actively incorporate their faith into their daily lives, through formal activities like regular church attendance, but also through informal activities like Bible study, daily prayer, or talking about religion with their friends.

White evangelicals are deeply committed to making a difference in their local community through volunteer work and charitable donations.

White evangelicals are politically conservative. They are deeply concerned with the state of moral values in the country. However, they also articulate concerns about the economy consistent with other Americans, such as healthcare and retirement.

White evangelicals rally around a foreign policy agenda that prioritizes safety and security at home over altruism and protection of other religious minorities abroad.

White evangelicals are deeply concerned with moral values and the protection of the family. They are extremely opposed to gay marriage and civil unions, but are mixed about the value of a Constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage.

White evangelicals steadfastly believe they are part of the American mainstream, but they believe the media are hostile toward their values and that it is a fight to get their voices heard by the American mainstream.

Who are Evangelicals?

Taking a look at the demographic distribution of evangelicals in America reveals that they are a population that is difficult to pigeonhole. They are a diverse group, sharing many characteristics of Americans in general. For example, white evangelical Christians are not overly concentrated in the South, despite popular assumptions. Rather white evangelical Christians are evenly spread out throughout the country. Slightly less than a third (31 percent) of white evangelicals live in the Deep South, compared with 28 percent of the general population. Many also live in the East North Central (19 percent, versus 16 percent of the general population) and Pacific (14 percent, versus 16 percent of the general population) states.

White evangelicals do disproportionately live in smaller population centers, like small towns (31 percent) or rural areas (25 percent). This contrasts with Americans in general (22 percent in small towns and 18 percent in rural areas, respectively). Only about 9 percent of white evangelicals live in large cities (as opposed to 19 percent of the general population).

Like most Americans, most white evangelicals have attained at least some college education. About 22 percent of white evangelicals hold 4-year college degrees, compared with 27 percent of the general population. A quarter (27 percent) of white evangelicals have some sort of post-secondary education, compared to 26 percent of the general population.

White evangelicals are older than average: nearly a quarter of white evangelicals (23 percent) are 65 years or over, compared with about 16 percent of the general population. Many (27 percent, versus 18 percent of the general population) are retired.

Evangelicals come from many different Protestant denominations. Roughly 29 percent of white evangelicals are Baptist, and half of them (52 percent, or 16 percent of overall white evangelicals) are Southern Baptists. An additional 12 percent are Methodist. On the other hand, nearly a quarter of white evangelicals (24 percent) either don't know their denomination, call themselves "just Christian" or "just Protestant," or are a non-denominational or inter-denominational Protestant.

Evangelicals in America are predominantly white or African American. About three quarters (74 percent) of evangelicals are white, 15 percent black. Hispanics, on the other hand, while predominantly Christian only make up 5 percent of the evangelical community. Hispanics remain (58 percent) largely Catholic, and an additional 12 percent are Pentecostal. In fact, among Protestants, Hispanics are twice as likely to be Pentecostal than whites (12 percent versus 6 percent).

Just as white evangelicals have many different Protestant denominations, they also come to their faith with a number of different Protestant identities. Roughly a quarter (24 percent) say they are fundamentalist, and another quarter say they are evangelical. An additional 5 percent say they are charismatic, and 10 percent prefer Pentecostal. Most interestingly though, as with their Protestant denomination, over a third of these Christians (34 percent) reject any such label, preferring to say they are none of these, or they don't know.

While they may eschew labels of formal denomination or formal identity, they rally around the concept of being born again. A strong majority (88 percent) of white evangelicals say they are "born-again Christian." This is much greater than Americans in general, where slightly less than half of which (48 percent) self-identify as born-again. Baptists and "just Christians" in particular overwhelmingly self-identify in this way (97 percent).

Among evangelicals, there is inherited religiosity, which is somewhat contradictory for a group that inherently believes they should spread their faith to others. About 63 percent say that at least one of their parents was a born-again Christian when they were growing up.[2] Half say that both of their parents were. One-third of white evangelicals are "converts," that is, neither parent was a born-again Christian when they were growing up. Being an evangelical is a largely non-immigrant phenomenon. Those who are Americans and whose parents were Americans are more than three times as likely to be evangelical Christians as those who are immigrants (34 percent versus 11 percent). Among African-American evangelicals this proportion is even higher. Over three-quarters of African-American evangelicals (77 percent) say at least one parent was a born-again Christian during their youth.

Evangelicals as Part of Mainstream American Culture

White evangelicals face an interesting tension between believing strongly they are part of the mainstream and exerting positive influence upon society while feeling hostility from the mass media and others in the "mainstream." When we speak of "evangelicals under siege" or an "embattled minority," there is some sense of attack and victimization though it is not overwhelming. While these devout Christians express a sense of persecution from the media, they do not choose to merely accept it. They think a great deal about their relationship with mainstream society, and they fight back, both as individuals and as a cohesive group. Socially they produce and patronize popular culture vehicles that expound on their beliefs. Many television and radio stations air exclusively Christian, family-friendly programming. And recent movies such as "The Passion of the Christ," books such as the best-selling "Left Behind" series, and Christian music, such as that from Jars of Clay, DC Talk, or Amy Grant, are examples of a Christian pop culture that is increasingly entering the American mainstream. In their homes, evangelicals avidly patronize these entertainment vehicles and limit their viewing of secular programming they deem offensive.

In spite of their exceptional lives, evangelical Christians steadfastly believe they are part of the American mainstream (75 percent agree). Approximately three-quarters (72 percent) believe that born-again or evangelical Christians have had at least some influence on American society. In general, Americans share this view as well, although perhaps not quite as strongly. Two-thirds (65 percent) agree that evangelicals are part of mainstream society, and about 60 percent acknowledge that evangelicals have had at least some influence on American society.

Yet evangelical Christians reflect a great deal about the relationship between their religion and society, and many are concerned. Evangelicals have strong concerns with moral values, especially with regards to children (71 percent are very worried that children are not learning values and respect). Moreover, over a third (36 percent) of evangelical Christians are very worried that society is becoming too secular, versus 26 percent of Americans in general. The disparity between the two numbers, however, suggests that evangelicals believe that the problem of declining moral values is something more than just a rise of secularism.

Even though most Americans agree that evangelicals are part of the American mainstream, white evangelicals do believe they are an embattled subgroup whose beliefs are given short shrift by others. A strong majority (74 percent) feels as though the mass media are hostile toward their moral and spiritual values. And a similar majority (77 percent) believe they must fight to have their voices heard by the American mainstream. Finally, a near majority (47 percent) believes that evangelical Christians are looked down upon by most Americans. Evangelicals who are more devout in their religious practices feel this more acutely. For example, about 57 percent of white evangelicals who attend church at least once a week feel looked down upon by others (compared with 45 percent of those who attend once a week and 33 percent of those who attend less than once a month). Evangelicals who are "converts," too, feel looked down upon more than other evangelicals (56 percent versus 48 percent of those with born-again parents).

This stands in contrast to how those who are not Christian view themselves and the media and white evangelicals. They do not share this anger, nor do they see the evangelical struggle. Only 30 percent of white non-Christians feel the media are hostile toward their own personal beliefs, and only 38 percent believe evangelicals are looked down upon. Only 36 percent feel that evangelicals have to fight to have their voices be heard.

Like many Americans, evangelicals are extremely worried about the state of moral values in this country. But in this sense, they are not so different from other Americans. About 71 percent are very worried that children are not learning values and respect. This is greater, but only somewhat greater, than the country at large, 63 percent of which are very worried about children and their values. Similarly, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of white evangelicals are very worried about the amount of sex and violence on television, versus slightly less than half (49 percent) of Americans in general.

White evangelicals seem to pay as much attention to popular culture as the rest of Americans. On average, they watch 3.0 hours of television a day; Americans in general watch 3.1. But while these numbers do not greatly differ from the general population, their religion mandates they do something about the content on television they are unhappy with, translating their religious beliefs to interventionist behavior. White evangelical parents are very involved in their kids' lives, and they want to make sure their children are learning the right kinds of values. More than three-quarters (76 percent) of white evangelicals with families have prevented their children from watching television shows or movies with objectionable content, compared with 54 percent of the general population. Similarly, 61 percent of white evangelicals with families have prevented their children from playing violent video games, compared with 47 percent of the general population.

White evangelicals turn to their faith to help them control their own vices. For example, white evangelicals were almost than twice as likely as those who are not evangelical to use their faith to abstain from alcohol (52 percent versus 23 percent). Among white evangelicals, those with more religious intensity, such as frequent church goers, were more likely to say they used their faith to abstain from alcohol (71 percent versus 34 percent of white evangelicals who attend church less than once a month).

Evangelicals and Politics

As we would expect, white evangelicals are quite conservative politically. They share the conservative agenda of the current White House and are strongly supportive of President Bush's re-election bid. They espouse pro-life positions, oppose gay marriage, and believe in doing what it takes to keep America strong as a foreign power. But there are some surprises as well. While a majority of white evangelicals oppose gay marriage, most would prefer to rely on state laws than amending the constitution. Less than half say that a candidates support for gay marriage would disqualify him or her from getting their votes.

About 69 percent of white evangelicals are Republican or lean Republican, and not surprisingly, this translates to strong support for George W. Bush's presidential re-election bid. Among likely voters, Bush leads Kerry 51 percent to 44 percent. However, among white evangelicals who are likely voters, Bush has a commanding lead at 74 percent of the vote versus 23 percent for Kerry.

A strong majority (71 percent) believes that born again or evangelical Christians have had at least some influence on the Bush administration. Moreover, those white evangelicals who believe that evangelical Christians have had "a lot" of influence on the Bush administration are much more likely to say they will vote for Bush in 2004 (83 percent for Bush vs. 15 percent for Kerry).

Roughly 1 in 5 white evangelical likely voters are Democrats. Without the reinforcement of church and social ties, they are less engaged politically. White evangelical Democrats are a bit less likely to be registered to vote (81 percent versus 86 percent of Republicans), and are less likely to vote in major elections (64 percent versus 73 percent of Republicans).[4]

For evangelical Democrats, however, partisanship is more important than religion in deciding for whom to cast their vote. Half of white evangelical Democrats rate George W. Bush unfavorably, compared with only 2 percent of white evangelical Republicans. Moreover, 79 percent of white evangelical Democrats believe the country is headed on the wrong track (versus only 27 percent of evangelical Republicans). These white evangelicals are for Kerry (71 percent). Black evangelicals too, traditional Democrats, are staunch Kerry supporters, with three-quarters saying they will vote for Kerry.

Political Engagement

When it comes to political activity, white evangelicals look similar to the general American population. They are only slightly more likely to be registered, and demonstrate a past voting behavior very similar to that of the rest of the country. However, just as with actions in their daily lives, evangelicals look for issues and candidates that expound upon their beliefs. They are somewhat more likely to get involved politically if they see a candidate or an issue that forwards their religious agenda.

White evangelicals are slightly more politically engaged than Americans in general. They are slightly more likely to be registered to vote (82 percent versus 77 percent).[5] They also slightly more likely than Americans in general to report that they vote regularly (65 percent versus 61 percent respectively reported that they voted in both 2000 and 2002).

Among white evangelicals, those who attend church frequently are somewhat more likely to be Republican (63 percent, compared with 44 percent of those who attend less than once a month), and are more likely to support Bush (78 percent, versus 60 percent). There is evidence to suggest that religion motivates white evangelicals toward political activism. For example, white evangelicals are more likely than non-evangelicals to say their religious faith has led them to boycott a product or company (37 versus 18 percent). Similarly, nearly a third (32 percent) of white evangelicals say their religious faith has led them to participate in an election campaign. This, too, is twice as high as non-evangelicals, only 16 percent of whom have participated in an election campaign because of their religious faith.

Although evangelicals are much more likely than Americans in general to give money to charitable organizations and to get involved politically, they are not any more likely to give money to a political organization or candidate. In this respect, they are very much like other Americans, motivated by their religiosity rather than their specific faith. Evangelicals are a little more likely than others to give money to a political organization or candidate if he/she is Christian (36 percent, versus 28 percent of Christians in general and 20 percent of non-Christians). On the other hand, evangelicals are slightly less likely to give money to a non-Christian political organization or candidate (28 percent, versus 31 percent of Christians in general and 41 percent of non-Christians).

The Domestic Agenda

White evangelicals firmly favor a conservative family values agenda and look skeptically upon organizations that typically are associated with liberal causes. However, on key economic issues such as jobs, healthcare, and retirement, white evangelicals share the same concerns as the rest of the country.

On domestic issues, white evangelicals share many of the same concerns as the rest of the country. They are very worried about keeping jobs in this country (54 percent very worried about jobs going overseas to countries like China, Mexico, and India, versus 51 percent of the general population), being able to maintain affordable health care (48 percent very worried, versus 53 percent), and having enough money for retirement (43 percent very worried, versus 47 percent).

White evangelicals share with Americans in general concerns about the economy and retirement (not surprising since they are older). A quarter of white evangelicals identify the economy as a top concern, compared with 31 percent of Americans in general. Older evangelicals are as likely to cite retirement and healthcare (23 percent) as a top concern as they are moral values (20 percent).

Older evangelical women, in particular, are concerned with economic issues. They face more serious economic challenges, such as lower incomes. They are twice as likely as their male counterparts to have household incomes of under $20,000 a year (25 percent versus 10 percent of young men and 9 percent of older men). Many identify as top concerns Social Security (27 percent) and healthcare (24 percent).

While "family values" top the list of the concerns of white evangelicals, it is worth pointing out that it is surprising that moral values are not more dominant. About 36 percent identify moral values as a top concern, compared with 21 percent of Americans in general. Moreover, while they express concern about values, other Americans share the same concerns: 71 percent are very worried that children are not learning values and respect, versus 63 percent of Americans in general.

Nonetheless, their opinions on traditional family values issues are striking. Two-thirds (67 percent) feel that abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, versus 45 percent of the general population. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) are very worried that the institution of marriage is under attack, as opposed to 42 percent of the general population. White evangelicals are overwhelmingly opposed to allowing gay marriage (85 percent), and nearly three-quarters (74 percent) are opposed to civil unions, versus 61 percent and 51 percent of the general population, respectively.

In spite of their dislike of gay marriage, though, there is a fair amount of reluctance to amending the U.S. Constitution to banning gay marriage. This suggests that while they are strongly opposed to allowing gays to be married or even form civil unions, there is a certain reluctance to such permanent legislation. Over half (51 percent) of white evangelicals opposing gay marriage do not support such amending the constitution, saying that state laws are sufficient.

Furthermore, gay marriage is not a litmus test of political candidates for many evangelicals. Only half of white evangelicals (50 percent) say they would not vote for a candidate that does not share their views on gay marriage. While this is seemingly inconsistent with the white evangelical family values platform, it is consistent with other studies that have placed gay marriage relatively low on a list of domestic priorities such as the economy, health care, retirement and education. For example, in a recent poll from the Democracy Corps, respondents who were likely voters overwhelmingly chose a statement that prioritizes choosing a candidate over jobs and healthcare as opposed to gay marriage (70 percent versus 24 percent).[6] Consistent with this study, they found that 54 percent of devout evangelicals would use gay marriage as a litmus test for selecting a candidate. Among African American evangelicals the number drops to 37 percent, suggesting there are limits of the platform of the religious right among African Americans.

The Foreign Policy Agenda

White evangelicals prioritize the "strength" issues when it comes to the United States' foreign policy agenda. In this way, their political attitudes seem to be more influenced by their political conservatism than the altruism of spreading their faith or doing God's work abroad. When it comes to international priorities, they think first of those that will keep America safe from foreign aggression. Homeland security and the war on terrorism are the top priorities for white evangelicals, rather than reaching out to the disadvantaged or even protecting the rights of religious minorities such as Christians in other countries.

Foreign policy objectives such as keeping America's military strong (42 percent extremely important) controlling biological, chemical and nuclear weapons around the world (35 percent extremely important) and fighting global terrorism (30 percent extremely important) are of critical importance to white evangelicals and considered higher priorities than activities that would protect the rights of other religious minorities (14 percent extremely important) or other altruistic acts, such as fighting global disease (21 percent extremely important), contributing to international relief efforts for famines and natural disasters (14 percent extremely important).

White evangelicals are much more decidedly pro-Israel than Americans in general, suggesting sympathy toward allies in the war on terrorism and democracies in the Middle East. Over half (55 percent) think it is extremely or very important we show support for Israel, compared with 40 percent of Americans in general. Evangelical Baptists are much more supportive of Israel than evangelical Methodists (66 percent versus 38 percent). There is also more support for Israel among fundamentalists (63 percent) and Pentecostals (67 percent) than self-identified evangelicals (55 percent) or those without such a Protestant identity (50 percent). This, however, is largely driven by their conservatism. Among white evangelicals, political conservatives are more than three times as likely to be supportive of Israel than moderate counterparts (25 percent versus 8 percent).

However, evangelicals are no different from the general population in their support of Palestinian rights: they offer slightly less support than the general population (21 percent versus 24 percent). This, again, is generally driven though their conservatism. White evangelical Democrats are more supportive of Palestine than evangelical Republicans (31 versus 18 percent), and are similar to Democrats in general (also 31 percent).

Conclusion

White evangelicals represent a diverse subset of Americans who are able with a powerful, consistent, and united voice to articulate the issues that are of most importance to them. Their interests tend to revolve around the interrelated issues of morality, family, national safety, and economic security. Their power comes from a daily personal commitment to their faith and by surrounding themselves every day with people and media that further inform, clarify, and reinforce their existing beliefs. They are deeply committed to their religious beliefs and determined to communicate them to the world. To this white evangelicals add a great deal of community outreach, simultaneously trying to improve the areas in which they live, provide a good Christian example to others, especially their children, and abide by their religious mandate to spread the faith.

Yet underlying this all is a desire and a need to be recognized as part of the American mainstream. Evangelicals motivate each other by thinking of themselves, much as the first Christians did as an embattled minority, marginalized at best or persecuted at worst for their religious beliefs. While other Americans may not necessarily see them in this way, what is most important is that this is how evangelical Christians see themselves. And it is their shared profound dissatisfaction with aspects of the American mainstream that gives them cause to fight to be heard by the American mainstream.

April 5, 2004
Religion and Ethics NewsWeekly
Anna Greenberg and Jennifer Berktold

[1] This memo is based on a survey of Americans, with oversamples of white evangelicals, African Americans, and Hispanics. The total sample size is 1,610 respondents and it has a margin of error of +/- 2.5%. The survey was conducted between March 16 and April 4th and employed random digit dial technology.

[2] This is perhaps less than expected. In the General Social Survey, for example, roughly 91 percent of Protestants say their mother was Protestant when growing up and 80 percent say their father was Protestant when growing up.

[3] Due to social desirability effects, especially in a survey about religion, respondents may over report their actual attendance.

[4] As is the case with church attendance, self-reported estimates of intention to vote may be somewhat inflated due to effects of social desirability.

[5] Self-reported estimates of voter registration may be somewhat inflated due to effects of social desirability.

[6] Democracy Corps survey of 1004 likely voters, conducted March 16-21, 2004. Question wording: "Now I'm going to read you some pairs of statements. As I read each pair, please tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own views, even if neither is exactly right. "This year, jobs and health care are more important to me than gay marriage when deciding on a candidate" and "If a candidate is open to legalizing gay marriages, I'm against him no matter what.""

2004-06-03T15:47:00.000-04:00

In football it's referred to as "piling on."

It's an illegal play, where opponents jump on the ball carrier after the whistle's been blown. It's a personal foul that results in the maximum (yardage) penalty being assessed. In the political arena however, illegal pot shots and reckless attacks in the midst of a contest, are just the way the game is played in an election year.

Think about it. Since the last election ended with claims that President Bush was "selected not elected," the only break we've had from the divisive rhetoric was a brief respite after 9/11. Since then, it's been a never-ending series of myopic bad news, spurious committee investigations, tell-all books, and congressional pronouncements intended to embarrass this administration. As if that were not enough, Hollywood's liberal elite are planning to release several so-called "documentary dramas" of a similar genre before the election.

Although we should expect spirited debate on the issues in any free society, when it comes to the politics of half-truths and character assassination -- in the midst of prosecuting a war on terrorism -- when does partisan dissent amount to treason? What could possibly justify the outrageous political vitriol from the liberal left, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America? As the only remaining "super-power" on earth, America can only be defeated from within. Wake-up partisans, "united" we stand, divided we fall.

This month, in advance of the 9/11-commission report filing, we have posted five articles that are intended to give you an objective assessment of the truth. We begin with a concise chronology of the events that led to the 911 attacks, authored by Ann Coulter. Next, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich exposes the hypocrisy of "selective" memory and outrage, as shown by the media during the Iraq conflict. An article by Hal Lindsey follows, presenting irrefutable evidence of the just cause that motivated war. A transcript of President Bush's recent national address follows this, on the strategy our nation is pursuing in Iraq, and the specific steps we're taking to achieve our goals. Finally, I re-post a personal commentary, made in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom, to demonstrate that advocacy for prosecuting a "just war" then, should stand the test of retrospect now.

We trust that our readers are keeping score in an objective manner, and that those who have taken a stand for righteousness, against such disheartening opposition -- will ultimately be vindicated this November.

How 9-11 happened

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: March 31, 2004
6:40 p.m. Eastern

© 2004 Universal Press Syndicate

We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN

The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.

In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops – bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians – who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.

On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."

Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN

In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ann Coulter, well-known for her television appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author. Dubbed "one of the 20 most fascinating women in politics" by George magazine, Coulter has appeared on ABC's "This Week," "Good Morning America," NBC's "Today," CNN's "Larry King Live" and CNBC's "Rivera Live."

Democracies and Double Standards
Our enemies have no business standing in judgment of America.

BY NEWT GINGRICH
Saturday, May 8, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

The media coverage of the violations of American law against Iraqi prisoners is in peril of setting a dangerous double standard for America and the Arab world. The administration must be very careful in explaining how we feel and what we will do. Otherwise our enemies will use our own words as an excuse to exploit this double standard.

To be clear, a very small number of Americans did a terrible thing at Abu Ghraib. And because we live under the rule of law, and we take protecting the Constitution seriously, the accused will be investigated and, when guilty, punished. The incidents themselves are to be condemned.

Some have called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign. However, he has led the process of exposing the wrongdoing and investigating the charges. Moreover, he will see to it that the accused get a fair and honest trial, in which there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proved and the guilty are punished. That due process is something we as Americans should be proud of, and unequivocal about. In view of Mr. Rumsfeld's significant contribution to our security, this incident will be but a footnote.

Explaining our anger at these misdeeds and our determination to punish the wrongdoers is appropriate. Appearing overly contrite or overly apologetic, however, will be a big mistake.

Not surprisingly, the anti-American left in our own country and in Europe--with its selective memory, remembering forever any American mistake while forgetting every anti-American and antihuman atrocity by others--is already on radio and television exploiting this as an opportunity to condemn America.

The pan-Arab media, with their selective outrage, honor and give prominence to terrorists and barbaric mobs. The smallest American error is given banner headlines, but is, in contrast, excoriated. It is suicidal to reinforce this double standard.

One needs to point out that the pan-Arab media said nothing when the Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad destroyed Hama and killed more than 10,000 of his own innocent people, or when Saddam Hussein used poison gas on Iraqis and created 300,000 anonymous graves.

Nothing negative was said by the pan-Arab media when Americans were burned, mutilated and dragged through the streets of Fallujah, or when two Palestinian gunmen ambushed a pregnant woman last Sunday in her station-wagon and at point-blank range methodically killed her four children ages two to 11, and then killed her.

It is worth remembering that Eason Jordan, a CNN executive, wrote an article admitting that his network had deliberately covered up and ignored Saddam's atrocities to retain access to Baghdad--a policy of caution that, of course, is not reflected in the network's current coverage of charges against America.

One American newspaper, with a half-page dedicated to the allegations of brutality in Iraq, referred to the Sunday killings of a mother and her five children as "violence marred the Sunday Likud election." No outrage, no shock, no horror, just another day of viciousness and brutality by our enemies.

We should firmly state our commitment to our values and denounce any American acts that violate those values. But while we publicly uncover and explicitly demonstrate our commitment to punish the guilty for their crimes under our rule of law, we should not play into any double standard under which America is allowed to be condemned by anyone who accepts Arab viciousness, terrorism, mutilation and barbarism as normal behavior.

With equal firmness we should demand of the Arab governments and the Arab media their condemnation of barbarism, brutality and terrorism in their own communities.

Finally, we should angrily reject anyone who would smear the 200,000-plus courageous decent men and women who have risked--and are risking daily--their lives for a free Iraq, and for a safe America. Any effort by the anti-American left or the Arab media to generalize the acts of a few into an attack on America, or on America's armed forces, should be repudiated and condemned.

Mr. Gingrich, former speaker of the House, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Not guilty! Now, let's adjourn for the hangin' ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 4, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Hal Lindsey

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

On Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush told a joint session of the Congress – to thunderous applause: "We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

The president paused, drew a deep breath, and told the Congress, the country and the world, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

The cheers resounded from both sides of the aisle – even Teddy Kennedy lumbered to his feet. The fires were finally out at the Pentagon. The ruins of the World Trade Center still smoldered in New York. The country was numb with grief.

As we investigated who dared to kill more innocent Americans in a few hours than were lost on D-Day or at Pearl Harbor, some of the evidence seemed to point in the direction of Baghdad.

There were mysterious meetings between Mohammed Atta in Prague before 9-11 and between senior Iraqi and al-Qaida envoys. There was Hussein's connection to the Kurdish al-Qaida affiliate, Ansar al-Islam. There was the hindsight intelligence that seem to suggest a connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein that developed following the first Gulf War.

Until early 2003, it would have been difficult for any civilized nation to argue Saddam's Iraq was not a terrorist regime. Saddam sent paymasters to the Palestinian Authority to dole out checks to the families of suicide bombers. He supplied cash and weapons to Palestinian terrorists.

Saddam's agents were sent to Kuwait to carry out a terrorist attack aimed at assassinating former President George Bush. Even such political luminaries as John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright and Richard Cohen all used the word "terrorist" at one time or another to describe Saddam's regime.

Since the fall of Saddam, documents have been authenticated detailing high-level meetings between members of Saddam's regime and members of al-Qaida. Iraqi agents traveled to Afghanistan in 1998 to meet with Osama bin Laden. Osama's representatives were accommodated in Baghdad. One document even outlines a deal between Saddam's government and al-Qaida to provide training facilities.

On Jan. 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden. Peter Jennings announced that, "Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

Those "intelligence sources" relied on by Peter Jennings were not Bush administration sources ... Bush was governor of Texas in January 1999.

When the Clinton administration finally got around to indicting Osama bin Laden for the 1998 Africa bombings, the indictment said, in part: "al-Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

On Aug. 27, 1998 – 20 days after al-Qaida attacked the U.S. embassies in Africa – Babel (a very interesting name, biblically speaking), the government newspaper run by Saddam's son Uday Hussein, published an editorial proclaiming bin Laden "an Arab and Islamic hero."

A bit more than a year after Saddam's regime crumbled, the evidence of a link between Saddam's Hussein and al-Qaida is undisputed. So, under the Bush Doctrine, as enunciated in his speech and approved by Congress, and under previously established U.S. policy for regime change in Iraq, as declared by President Clinton in 1998, it defies evidence and honesty how half the nation can argue the war was not justified.

Yet Al Gore's recent speech supporting John Kerry made declarations so far off the wall that New York Post columnist John Podhoretz questioned whether Gore had gone clinically insane.

Even John Kerry distanced himself from Al Gore – but only to keep Gore from slobbering all over him. After the coast was clear, Kerry repeated the same charges, but managed to do so without his eyes bugging out and his face turning purple.

They charged that George Bush led America recklessly into an unjustified war and, worst of all, began laying plans for this reckless attack – in advance. Never mind that it was acknowledged in the past by all sides to be a proven terrorist state with clear ties to al-Qaida!

Now fully grasp the enormity of this deception being peddled here: When the intelligence upon which everyone relied for the past 12 years was discovered to be flawed, somehow, that became evidence that Bush "lied." For this charge to be true, we would have to establish that the president had sources of evidence more credible than what President Clinton and all the other Democratic luminaries had.

Whether or not WMD will be found eventually – which remains a distinct possibility – is rhetorical. But the evidence strongly supports doing whatever was necessary to remove Saddam and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for the al-Qaida terrorist network that we just drove out of Afghanistan.

The evidence clearly shows that Bush is not guilty as charged. But his hanging is to proceed right on schedule. In this coming election, the Democrats – backed by a new breed of liberals – want to win at any cost. It matters not what the truth is. The only thing that matters is to spin information so that it enables you to win. And with such allies as Hollywood and the standard media, the "spin doctors" can get lies repeated enough to take on the semblance of truth.

But how does all this affect the troops who are daily risking their lives? Somewhere in Iraq this morning, an American soldier will pick up this week's Newsweek and read these words from a column by Christopher Dickey: "American soldiers in Iraq have been put in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. But like any G.I. Joe in World War II, they're making the best of a bad situation."

I think Dickey intended to compliment the troops. But what if your best friend died in your arms because he was "put in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons"?

President Bush addresses the nation
President's remarks on Iraq

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: May 24, 2004
10:38 p.m. Eastern

The following remarks were made by President Bush at the United States Army War College in Carlisle, Penn., on Monday evening, May 24, 2002.

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you and good evening. I'm honored to visit the Army War College. Generations of officers have come here to study the strategies and history of warfare. I've come here tonight to report to all Americans, and to the Iraqi people, on the strategy our nation is pursuing in Iraq, and the specific steps were taking to achieve our goals.

The actions of our enemies over the last few weeks have been brutal, calculating, and instructive. We've seen a car bombing take the life of a 61-year-old Iraqi named Izzedin Saleem, who was serving as President of the Governing Council. This crime shows our enemy's intention to prevent Iraqi self-government, even if that means killing a lifelong Iraqi patriot and a faithful Muslim. Mr. Saleem was assassinated by terrorists seeking the return of tyranny and the death of democracy.

We've also seen images of a young American facing decapitation. This vile display shows a contempt for all the rules of warfare, and all the bounds of civilized behavior. It reveals a fanaticism that was not caused by any action of ours, and would not be appeased by any concession. We suspect that the man with the knife was an al Qaeda associate named Zarqawi. He and other terrorists know that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror. And we must understand that, as well. The return of tyranny to Iraq would be an unprecedented terrorist victory, and a cause for killers to rejoice. It would also embolden the terrorists, leading to more bombings, more beheadings, and more murders of the innocent around the world.

The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.

Our work in Iraq has been hard. Our coalition has faced changing conditions of war, and that has required perseverance, sacrifice, and an ability to adapt. The swift removal of Saddam Hussein's regime last spring had an unintended effect: Instead of being killed or captured on the battlefield, some of Saddam's elite guards shed their uniforms and melted into the civilian population. These elements of Saddam's repressive regime and secret police have reorganized, rearmed, and adopted sophisticated terrorist tactics. They've linked up with foreign fighters and terrorists. In a few cities, extremists have tried to sow chaos and seize regional power for themselves. These groups and individuals have conflicting ambitions, but they share a goal: They hope to wear out the patience of Americans, our coalition, and Iraqis before the arrival of effective self-government, and before Iraqis have the capability to defend their freedom.

Iraq now faces a critical moment. As the Iraqi people move closer to governing themselves, the terrorists are likely to become more active and more brutal. There are difficult days ahead, and the way forward may sometimes appear chaotic. Yet our coalition is strong, our efforts are focused and unrelenting, and no power of the enemy will stop Iraq's progress. (Applause.)

Helping construct a stable democracy after decades of dictatorship is a massive undertaking. Yet we have a great advantage. Whenever people are given a choice in the matter, they prefer lives of freedom to lives of fear. Our enemies in Iraq are good at filling hospitals, but they do not build any. They can incite men to murder and suicide, but they cannot inspire men to live, and hope, and add to the progress of their country. The terrorists' only influence is violence, and their only agenda is death.

Our agenda, in contrast, is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East, we also make our own country more secure.

Our coalition has a clear goal, understood by all – to see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time in generations. America's task in Iraq is not only to defeat an enemy, it is to give strength to a friend - a free, representative government that serves its people and fights on their behalf. And the sooner this goal is achieved, the sooner our job will be done.

There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government, help establish security, continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, encourage more international support, and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.

The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and will not be replaced. The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs. America's ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, will present his credentials to the new president of Iraq. Our embassy in Baghdad will have the same purpose as any other American embassy, to assure good relations with a sovereign nation. America and other countries will continue to provide technical experts to help Iraq's ministries of government, but these ministries will report to Iraq's new prime minister.

The United Nations Special Envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, is now consulting with a broad spectrum of Iraqis to determine the composition of this interim government. The special envoy intends to put forward the names of interim government officials this week. In addition to a president, two vice presidents, and a prime minister, 26 Iraqi ministers will oversee government departments, from health to justice to defense. This new government will be advised by a national council, which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country's diversity. This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held. America fully supports Mr. Brahimi's efforts, and I have instructed the Coalition Provisional Authority to assist him in every way possible.

In preparation for sovereignty, many functions of government have already been transferred. Twelve government ministries are currently under the direct control of Iraqis. The Ministry of Education, for example, is out of the propaganda business, and is now concerned with educating Iraqi children. Under the direction of Dr. Ala'din al-Alwan, the Ministry has trained more than 30,000 teachers and supervisors for the schools of a new Iraq.

All along, some have questioned whether the Iraqi people are ready for self-government, or even want it. And all along, the Iraqi people have given their answer. In settings where Iraqis have met to discuss their country's future, they have endorsed representative government. And they are practicing representative government. Many of Iraq's cities and towns now have elected town councils or city governments - and beyond the violence, a civil society is emerging.

The June 30th transfer of sovereignty is an essential commitment of our strategy. Iraqis are proud people who resent foreign control of their affairs, just as we would. After decades under the tyrant, they are also reluctant to trust authority. By keeping our promise on June 30th, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation. And full sovereignty will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government. Iraqis will know that when they build a school or repair a bridge, they're not working for the Coalition Provisional Authority, they are working for themselves. And when they patrol the streets of Baghdad, or engage radical militias, they will be fighting for their own country.

The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires. Coalition forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies – the terrorists, illegal militia, and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation. Working as allies, we will defend Iraq and defeat these enemies.

America will provide forces and support necessary for achieving these goals. Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict. Given the recent increase in violence, we'll maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary. This has required extended duty for the 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Light Cavalry Regiment – 20,000 men and women who were scheduled to leave Iraq in April. Our nation appreciates their hard work and sacrifice, and they can know that they will be heading home soon. General Abizaid and other commanders in Iraq are constantly assessing the level of troops they need to fulfill the mission. If they need more troops, I will send them. The mission of our forces in Iraq is demanding and dangerous. Our troops are showing exceptional skill and courage. I thank them for their sacrifices and their duty. (Applause.)

In the city of Fallujah, there's been considerable violence by Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters, including the murder of four American contractors. American soldiers and Marines could have used overwhelming force. Our commanders, however, consulted with Iraq's Governing Council and local officials, and determined that massive strikes against the enemy would alienate the local population, and increase support for the insurgency. So we have pursued a different approach. We're making security a shared responsibility in Fallujah. Coalition commanders have worked with local leaders to create an all-Iraqi security force, which is now patrolling the city. Our soldiers and Marines will continue to disrupt enemy attacks on our supply routes, conduct joint patrols with Iraqis to destroy bomb factories and safe houses, and kill or capture any enemy.

We want Iraqi forces to gain experience and confidence in dealing with their country's enemies. We want the Iraqi people to know that we trust their growing capabilities, even as we help build them. At the same time, Fallujah must cease to be a sanctuary for the enemy, and those responsible for terrorism will be held to account.

In the cities of Najaf and Karbala and Kufa, most of the violence has been incited by a young, radical cleric who commands an illegal militia. These enemies have been hiding behind an innocent civilian population, storing arms and ammunition in mosques, and launching attacks from holy shrines. Our soldiers have treated religious sites with respect, while systematically dismantling the illegal militia. We're also seeing Iraqis, themselves, take more responsibility for restoring order. In recent weeks, Iraqi forces have ejected elements of this militia from the governor's office in Najaf. Yesterday, an elite Iraqi unit cleared out a weapons cache from a large mosque in Kufa. Respected Shia leaders have called on the militia to withdraw from these towns. Ordinary Iraqis have marched in protest against the militants.

As challenges arise in Fallujah, Najaf, and elsewhere, the tactics of our military will be flexible. Commanders on the ground will pay close attention to local conditions. And we will do all that is necessary – by measured force or overwhelming force – to achieve a stable Iraq.

Iraq's military, police, and border forces have begun to take on broader responsibilities. Eventually, they must be the primary defenders of Iraqi security, as American and coalition forces are withdrawn. And we're helping them to prepare for this role. In some cases, the early performance of Iraqi forces fell short. Some refused orders to engage the enemy. We've learned from these failures, and we've taken steps to correct them. Successful fighting units need a sense of cohesion, so we've lengthened and intensified their training. Successful units need to know they are fighting for the future of their own country, not for any occupying power, so we are ensuring that Iraqi forces serve under an Iraqi chain of command. Successful fighting units need the best possible leadership, so we improved the vetting and training of Iraqi officers and senior enlisted men.

At my direction, and with the support of Iraqi authorities, we are accelerating our program to help train Iraqis to defend their country. A new team of senior military officers is now assessing every unit in Iraq's security forces. I've asked this team to oversee the training of a force of 260,000 Iraqi soldiers, police, and other security personnel. Five Iraqi army battalions are in the field now, with another eight battalions to join them by July the 1st. The eventual goal is an Iraqi army of 35,000 soldiers in 27 battalions, fully prepared to defend their country.

After June 30th, American and other forces will still have important duties. American military forces in Iraq will operate under American command as a part of a multinational force authorized by the United Nations. Iraq's new sovereign government will still face enormous security challenges, and our forces will be there to help.

The third step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to continue rebuilding that nation's infrastructure, so that a free Iraq can quickly gain economic independence and a better quality of life. Our coalition has already helped Iraqis to rebuild schools and refurbish hospitals and health clinics, repair bridges, upgrade the electrical grid, and modernize the communications system. And now a growing private economy is taking shape. A new currency has been introduced. Iraq's Governing Council approved a new law that opens the country to foreign investment for the first time in decades. Iraq has liberalized its trade policy, and today an Iraqi observer attends meetings of the World Trade Organization. Iraqi oil production has reached more than two million barrels per day, bringing revenues of nearly $6 billion so far this year, which is being used to help the people of Iraq. And thanks in part to our efforts – to the efforts of former Secretary of State James Baker, many of Iraq's largest creditors have pledged to forgive or substantially reduce Iraqi debt incurred by the former regime.

We're making progress. Yet there still is much work to do. Over the decades of Saddam's rule, Iraq's infrastructure was allowed to crumble, while money was diverted to palaces, and to wars, and to weapons programs. We're urging other nations to contribute to Iraqi reconstruction – and 37 countries and the IMF and the World Bank have so far pledged $13.5 billion in aid. America has dedicated more than $20 billion to reconstruction and development projects in Iraq. To ensure our money is spent wisely and effectively, our new embassy in Iraq will have regional offices in several key cities. These offices will work closely with Iraqis at all levels of government to help make sure projects are completed on time and on budget.

A new Iraq will also need a humane, well-supervised prison system. Under the dictator, prisons like Abu Ghraib were symbols of death and torture. That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values. America will fund the construction of a modern, maximum security prison. When that prison is completed, detainees at Abu Ghraib will be relocated. Then, with the approval of the Iraqi government, we will demolish the Abu Ghraib prison, as a fitting symbol of Iraq's new beginning. (Applause.)

The fourth step in our plan is to enlist additional international support for Iraq's transition. At every stage, the United States has gone to the United Nations – to confront Saddam Hussein, to promise serious consequences for his actions, and to begin Iraqi reconstruction. Today, the United States and Great Britain presented a new resolution in the Security Council to help move Iraq toward self-government. I've directed Secretary Powell to work with fellow members of the Council to endorse the timetable the Iraqis have adopted, to express international support for Iraq's interim government, to reaffirm the world's security commitment to the Iraqi people, and to encourage other U.N. members to join in the effort. Despite past disagreements, most nations have indicated strong support for the success of a free Iraq. And I'm confident they will share in the responsibility of assuring that success.

Next month, at the NATO summit in Istanbul, I will thank our 15 NATO allies who together have more than 17,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Great Britain and Poland are each leading a multinational division that is securing important parts of the country. And NATO, itself, is giving helpful intelligence, communications, and logistical support to the Polish-led division. At the summit, we will discuss NATO's role in helping Iraq build and secure its democracy.

The fifth and most important step is free, national elections, to be held no later than next January. A United Nations team, headed by Carina Perelli, is now in Iraq, helping form an independent election commission that will oversee an orderly, accurate national election. In that election, the Iraqi people will choose a transitional national assembly, the first freely-elected, truly representative national governing body in Iraq's history. This assembly will serve as Iraq's legislature, and it will choose a transitional government with executive powers. The transitional national assembly will also draft a new constitution, which will be presented to the Iraqi people in a referendum scheduled for the fall of 2005. Under this new constitution, Iraq will elect a permanent government by the end of next year.

In this time of war and liberation and rebuilding, American soldiers and civilians on the ground have come to know and respect the citizens of Iraq. They're a proud people who hold strong and diverse opinions. Yet Iraqis are united in a broad and deep conviction: They're determined never again to live at the mercy of a dictator. And they believe that a national election will put that dark time behind them. A representative government that protects basic rights, elected by Iraqis, is the best defense against the return of tyranny – and that election is coming. (Applause.)

Completing the five steps to Iraqi elected self-government will not be easy. There's likely to be more violence before the transfer of sovereignty, and after the transfer of sovereignty. The terrorists and Saddam loyalists would rather see many Iraqis die than have any live in freedom. But terrorists will not determine the future of Iraq. (Applause.)

That nation is moving every week toward free elections and a permanent place among free nations. Like every nation that has made the journey to democracy, Iraqis will raise up a government that reflects their own culture and values. I sent American troops to Iraq to defend our security, not to stay as an occupying power. I sent American troops to Iraq to make its people free, not to make them American. Iraqis will write their own history, and find their own way. As they do, Iraqis can be certain, a free Iraq will always have a friend in the United States of America. (Applause.)

In the last 32 months, history has placed great demands on our country, and events have come quickly. Americans have seen the flames of September the 11th, followed battles in the mountains of Afghanistan, and learned new terms like "orange alert" and "ricin" and "dirty bomb." We've seen killers at work on trains in Madrid, in a bank in Istanbul, at a synagogue in Tunis, and at a nightclub in Bali. And now the families of our soldiers and civilian workers pray for their sons and daughters in Mosul and Karbala and Baghdad.

We did not seek this war on terror, but this is the world as we find it. We must keep our focus. We must do our duty. History is moving, and it will tend toward hope, or tend toward tragedy. Our terrorist enemies have a vision that guides and explains all their varied acts of murder. They seek to impose Taliban-like rule, country by country, across the greater Middle East. They seek the total control of every person, and mind, and soul, a harsh society in which women are voiceless and brutalized. They seek bases of operation to train more killers and export more violence. They commit dramatic acts of murder to shock, frighten and demoralize civilized nations, hoping we will retreat from the world and give them free rein. They seek weapons of mass destruction, to impose their will through blackmail and catastrophic attacks. None of this is the expression of a religion. It is a totalitarian political ideology, pursued with consuming zeal, and without conscience.

Our actions, too, are guided by a vision. We believe that freedom can advance and change lives in the greater Middle East, as it has advanced and changed lives in Asia, and Latin America, and Eastern Europe, and Africa. We believe it is a tragedy of history that in the Middle East – which gave the world great gifts of law and science and faith – so many have been held back by lawless tyranny and fanaticism. We believe that when all Middle Eastern peoples are finally allowed to live and think and work and worship as free men and women, they will reclaim the greatness of their own heritage. And when that day comes, the bitterness and burning hatreds that feed terrorism will fade and die away. America and all the world will be safer when hope has returned to the Middle East.

These two visions – one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life – clashed in Afghanistan. And thanks to brave U.S. and coalition forces and to Afghan patriots, the nightmare of the Taliban is over, and that nation is coming to life again. These two visions have now met in Iraq, and are contending for the future of that country. The failure of freedom would only mark the beginning of peril and violence. But, my fellow Americans, we will not fail. We will persevere, and defeat this enemy, and hold this hard-won ground for the realm of liberty.

May God bless our country.

Courage Under Fire

Whether you support military action against Iraq or not, I believe the vehement dissent that’s been leveled against our President on this issue is more than just unpatriotic—-it may well border on treason. No one is debating that war should be waged as a last resort, or that people of good conscience will disagree on the means of resolving the crisis in Iraq. Indeed, public debate on an issue as important as this should be expected from any free society. But when it comes to matters of trust and national security, it boggles the mind that anyone would side with the tyrannical regime in Baghdad over a United States President.

Even the likes of Nelson Mandela have hurled vile accusations of “blood for oil” and shrill commentary on President Bush’s supposed willingness to sacrifice the lives of American enlisted personnel and world peace for cheap oil. In response, former U.S. Assistant Defense Secretary and UN Arms-Control Director Kenneth Adelman, adroitly countered instead, “it’s Saddam who’s been on a clear path of oil for blood.” Via UN sanctions, Hussein has apparently been willing to forego as much as $200 billion in lost oil revenue, in order to thwart inspections and conceal his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. Apparently it’s his WMD arsenal that Saddam values most. And if the U.S. wanted cheaper oil, we could have simply joined the French government in circumnavigating UN sanctions on procurement of Iraqi crude. Other than spurious arguments over energy or politics, is there a legitimate reason to stand down?

Is President Bush really engaging in a “rush to war,” as his detractors would have us believe? Hasn’t it been over eleven years since Saddam Hussein, who in order to retain his hold on power, agreed to disarm and demilitarize after the 1991 Gulf War? Even with Iraq having violated and obstructed enforcement of over fifteen UN resolutions since then, hasn’t the President first sought and received the approval of Congress and the UN Security Council to use “all means necessary” for enforcement? Given the glaring omissions in Iraq’s report to the UN, on the disposition of weapon programs already documented, does anyone really believe more time for inspections will uncover what Iraq is determined to conceal? Does anyone doubt that Saddam’s WMD program build-up serves any purpose other than to carryout his malevolent intent?

Will military action against Iraq really qualify as being preemptive? A better question would be, “should we wait until Iraq can engage in nuclear blackmail (like North Korea) before we take action?” While this administration has articulated a proactive strategy against terrorism, this action remains tied to the ’91 conflict. Since then, cessation of hostilities has been dependent upon Iraq’s disarmament. Pressure and sanctions have never been lifted, because Iraq has never complied with UN resolutions. Instead of disarming, Hussein’s regime continues to conceal missile programs, as well as huge quantities of biological and chemical nerve agents. Surely, Iraq poses a “clear and present danger” to their neighbors and the free world. As President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union address, “Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

So why is it that many of our former allies do not support this action? Simply put, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. For obvious reasons, associated with the toll that war exacts in death, destruction, and ongoing instability, the world community would understandably rather exhaust all peaceful means before resorting to force of arms. Considering the U.S. posture though, it should be equally obvious, that based on Hussein’s previous behavior and present course of action—that his WMD program presents an even greater catastrophic threat. Difficult choices aside, it’s the illicit energy pacts of unscrupulous allies and the cling to power from totalitarian regimes, which also prevents forthright action against Iraq. Frankly, if the UN is unwilling to authorize action against the Iraqi regime—that started 2 regional wars, that attempted genocide against its Kurdish population, and that stands in “material breach” of every UN resolution—then we owe Serbia an apology for interfering with their war in the Balkans.

I pray that President Bush will continue to show his courage under fire, during this latest defense of freedom over tyranny. When our President refuses to leave tough decisions to future administrations, he demonstrates the substance of true leadership. This principled man continues to stand in the gap, where others fear to tread. According to the latest polling data, over 80% of the American people side with our Commander-in-Chief. Although America’s support has slipped with some Europeans (within the Axis of Envy), and many Islamic countries, it probably has more to do with the immoral image we portray in the media, than with our foreign policy.

All things considered, the vitriolic stream of rhetoric coming from the Democratic Party’s leadership and the Hollywood elite is disingenuous, when their real intention is to discredit a President they claim was “selected, rather than elected.” Ideological sentiments aside, it’s hard to tell if they’re more interested in just maligning the character of an honorable leader, or deliberately aiding and abetting America’s enemies.

Roy Tanner

2004-05-12T12:11:00.000-04:00

It's called "triumphalism."

It's an ideology that places the world's nations into one of two categories -- either those who have been (previously)conquered, or those who have yet to be conquered. Even though a minority of Islam's 1.5 billion adherents hold this view, the zeal of just ten percent still presents a major force to be reckoned with. Clearly militant Islam is engaged in a global "zero-sum game," where East and West cannot peacefully co-exist. And their commitment to this struggle will not end, until they prevail.

The Bush administration understands this threat, and has been prosecuting global terrorism with a national defense strategy versus just law enforcement tactics. The horrific attacks on 9/11 were nothing short of an attempt to decapitate our leadership by striking at the symbols of American commerce, defense, and government. And while the term "regime change" shocks and appalls diplomats, the choice presented by "asymmetrical warfare" boils down to this -- we either fight them on their turf, or face them on the streets of America.

It is critical then, that as a nation, we either come to terms with the commitment required to protect Western civilization, or accept their terms for our surrender. This month we feature four articles, from both secular and Christian perspectives, that arrive at a consensus regarding the threat posed by militant Islam.

It is my hope, for those who grasp the spiritual dimension of this global menace, that we be found faithful to call upon God's protection and provision, as we raise a righteous standard against the forces that seek to oppress.

Up against fanaticism
By Phil Lucas
Executive Editor
The News Herald

If straight talk of savagery offends you, if you believe in ethnic and gender diversity but not diversity of thought or if you think there is an acceptable gray area between good and evil, then turn to the funny pages, and take the children, too. This piece is not for you.

We published pictures of burnt American corpses hanging from an Iraqi bridge behind a mob of grinning Muslims.

Some readers didn't like it. Mothers said it frightened their children. A woman who works with Muslim physicians thought it might offend or endanger them.

Well, we sure don't want to frighten, offend or endanger anybody, do we? That's just too much diversity to handle. I mean, somebody might get hurt.

We could fill the newspaper every morning with mobs of fanatical Muslims. They can't get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France,Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia, etc.etc. etc. Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved? Today, where there is war, there are fanatical Muslims. We might quibble about who started what conflicts, but look at the sheer number of them.

One thing is sure. Muslim killers started the one we are in now when they slaughtered more than 3,000 people, including fellow Muslims, in New York City.

Madeline Albright, the former secretary of state and feckless appeaser who helped get us into this mess, said last week Muslims still resented the Crusades. Well, Madame Albright, if Westerners were not such a forgiving people, we might resent them too.

Let's recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe and when they reached sufficient numbers they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years.

Now, a millennium later, Muslims have expanded forth again. Ask France. Ask England. Ask Manhattan. Two-and-a-half years ago fanatical Muslims laid siege to us. We woke up to the obvious. Our president announced it would be a very long war, then took the battle to the Islamic homeland. Sound familiar?

Let's consider the concept of a "long war." Last time it was 200 years, give or take.

Anybody catch Lord of the Rings? You know, the good part, the part that wasn't fiction, the part that drew us to the books and movies because it was the truest part: the titanic struggle between good and evil, between freedom and enslavement, between the individual and the state, between the celebration of life and the worshipping of death.

That's the fight we are in, and it never ends. It just has peaks and valleys.

There may be a silent majority of peaceful Muslims - some live here - but that did not save 3,000 people in the World Trade Centers, the millions gassed and butchered in the Middle East, the tens of thousands slain in Eastern Europe and Asia, the hundreds blown to bits in the West Bank and Spain, or the four Americans shot, burned and hung like sausage over the Euphrates as a fanatical minority of Muslims did the joyful dance of death.

Maybe we are so tolerant, we are so bent on "diversity," we are so nonjudgmental, we are so wrapped up in our six-packs and ballgames that our brains have drained to our bulbous behinds. Maybe we're so addled on Ritalin we wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold. Maybe we need a new drug advertised on TV every three minutes, one that would help us grow a backbone.

It doesn't take a Darwin to figure out that in this world the smartest, the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions.

Look at your spouse and children. Look at yourself in the mirror. Then look at the pictures from the paper last Thursday. You better look at them. Those are the people out to kill you.

Who do you think will win? You? Or them? Think you can take your ball and go home and they will leave you alone? Read a little history. Start with last week, last month, last year, and every other year back for half a century. Then go back a thousand years. Nobody hides from this fight.

Like it or not, that's the way it was and that's the way it is.

But many Americans don't get it. That's why we published those pictures.

If they jarred you off the sofa, if they offended you, if they scared your children and sent you into a rage at mass murderers or heartless editors, then I say, it's a start.

The Culture of Death
Commentary on the News
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

Much has been written regarding the true nature of Islam, especially since 9/11. Until the attacks, most Americans knew little or nothing about it and what they did know was probably incorrect.

One of the major failings of the Bush administration has been to minimize Islam's role in the war against terror, repeating the mantra that "Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by a few murderers" instead of investigating its core teachings first.

Before a gathering of ambassadors in the East Room on the 1st anniversary of the Iraq War, Bush noted; "On a tape claiming responsibility for the atrocities in Madrid, a man is heard to say, 'We choose death, while you choose life'."

But not once in the speech did he mention the reason for the terror. The reason is Islam itself. It is Islam that requires all faithful Muslims to conquer the world for Islam, either by voluntary conversion or submission under the sword.

Islam is first of all at war with itself, and secondarily with the rest of the world.

Within Islam are two major sects, the Sunnis and the Shia. Sunnis claim Islam descended directly from Mohammed, while the Shia say the true succession of Islam came through Ali, married to the prophet's daughter,Fatima.

The eight-year-war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980's was essentially a war between Sunni Islam and the Shia Republic of Iran. When US forces got inside Iraq, they found hundreds of mass graves containing the bodies of tens of thousands of Shi'ite Iraqis murdered by Saddam's Sunni-dominated military.

Judaism, and by extension, Christianity, claim their spiritual heritage is descended from Abraham, through the line of Isaac and Jacob.

Islam claims its heritage through Abraham's elder son, Ishmael. Of Ishmael, Genesis 16:12 tells us, "And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."

Islam is a religion born out of blood and the sword, not peace. The secular Muslim scholar Ibn Warraq, author of 'Why I Am Not a Muslim' and 'The Quest for the Historical Muhammed', points out that, from the approved holy books on the life of Mohammed that the prophet and his band of followers participated in 80 political assassinations in their consolidation of power.

During the 8th century, Islam conquered a wide swath of territory from the Arabian Peninsula all the way to the Iberian Peninsula, which it called "Andalusia." Today, it is called 'Spain'.

To Muslims this entire area is called "Dar al Islam" which means, the Zone of Submission. It is a received doctrine of the Koran that no part of the Dar al-Islam ever can be ceded permanently to the infidel. The Moors were kicked out of the Andalusian caliphate in 1493 by the Spanish Reconquest.

But Islam has a long memory.

On Oct. 7, 2001, the day the United States began bombing Afghanistan, bin Laden appeared in a videotape, stating, "Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of al-Andalus would be repeated."
While areas conquered by Islam are known as Dar al Islam, areas unconquered by Islam also have an Islamic religious name; "Dar al-Harb" or, the Zone of War. Islam demands an armed struggle to bring the rest of the world under the Dar al Islam, offering conversion or the sword. That is a basic principle of the 'religion of peace'.
We get our word 'assassin' from a twelve century Islamic forerunner of Osama bin-Laden named Hasan-i Sabbah. His terrorist group was called 'the Ismalis'and al-Qaeda's secret society was modeled on i-Sabbah's.

Called the "Old Man in the Mountain" he attracted hundreds of young men by offering training in religious doctrine, devotional discipline and terrorism. i-Sabba singled out for attack those rulers he judged to have been corrupted by power and luxury or who, in his view, were insufficiently dedicated to the principles of Islam.

His followers would steal into palaces in the dead of night and slit the throats of their victims, knowing they would be caught and killed. This disadvantage was offset by a carefully taught theological conviction that, when slain, they would be rewarded instantly with the joys of paradise. These terrorists were called assassins, the Hashishiyyin, because they used hashhish to bolster their courage.

According to accounts brought back by the Crusaders, the Old Man in the Mountain had such control over his followers that he would amuse and terrorize visitors to his castle by ordering a few of his young men to jump off a cliff to demonstrate that they would obey his slightest whim.

Islam is first and foremost, a culture of death. Attorney General John Ashcroft once famously observed that, "Islam is a religion in which God expects your son to die for him. Christianity is a religion in which God sent His Son to die for you."

The efforts by the Bush administration to separate Islam from terrorism is understandable, given that there are 1.9 billion Muslims in the world and we don't want to have to fight all of them at once. I don't for one second believe that Bush believes Islam, at its core, is a religion of peace.

He has advisors, among whom is presumably John Ashcroft, who clearly DOES understand Islam's true nature.

Disconnecting Islam from terrorism is deemed by the administration to be a political necessity, but it is wrongly being applied to a wartime scenario. The Clinton administration did exactly the same thing, appeasing Islam to the degree that it invaded Serbia in 1999 to install an Islamist government in Kosovo. It treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem, instead of a military one. It didn't bring peace, either to America or to Kosovo.

It is unlikely that the current administration's efforts to pretend Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by a few terrorists will bring peace, either. While Crusader America is absent from the prophetic record, the Bible mentions Islam for the first time all the way back in Genesis.

And Daniel says of the antichrist that, while he (the antichrist) personally has no regard for any god himself, "in his estate shall he honour the god of forces: and a god WHOM HIS FATHERS KNEW NOT shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things." (Daniel 11:38, emphasis mine)

In his efforts to settle the ongoing conflict between the Arabs and Jews over Israel, Daniel says the antichrist will ally himself with the forces of Islam; "Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall DIVIDE THE LAND FOR GAIN." (Daniel 11:39)

Europe is already attempting to insinuate itself into the Arab-Israeli 'peace process' and its anti-Israeli bias is the subject of endless secular commentaries and analyses. Islam has a role to play in the last days, as does Europe. America does not.

It is hard to view the whole picture without feeling a bit like a purveyor of gloom and doom. It looks like the writing may truly be on the wall for America sometime within the next few years, both from the predictions of the Holy Writ, and from the headlines of the daily news.

But it is NOT 'gloom and doom' -- it is proof positive that what appears to be chaos and terror from the perspective of the world, is actually a Divine Plan that has been in motion since Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Jacob. The fact the Plan is coming to fruition in our day means that the Lord of Hosts remains firmly in control of human events. The Bible painstakingly records the details of our current geopolitical world for a purpose.

So that, when we see these things beginning to come to pass, we can have assurance that the same God Who promised chaos and judgment to the world promised He would return for His Church.

"For this we say unto you BY THE WORD OF THE LORD, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1st Thessalonians 4:15-17)

What terrifies the world, is, for the Church, the Promise of the Blessed Hope.

"Wherefore, comfort one another with these words." (1 Thessalonians 4:18)

Is it a religious war yet?

Posted: April 8, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

On Nov. 6, 2003, prior to Saddam Hussein's capture, I told you what was necessary to end the conflict in Iraq and establish a democratic government. I also told you the price of failure ("Break them now!").

It is a sad fact that men and women can become so blinded by hatred and rage that they become, as Jesus' half-brother, Jude, described: "brute beasts ...twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever (Jude 1:10-13).

The Arab world's hatred for Israel has been nourished from childbirth for generations. The victims of that hatred are now well beyond rational human thought and debate - they have become one with their hatred, embracing death as the only remaining road to an imagined paradise. Increasingly, children themselves are being offered up to kill Jews. The worship of Molech is alive and well.

Europe and America functioned as the willfully blind enablers of this hatred. We turned a blind eye during its infancy. We did it for the oil. Browbeaten with taunts of colonialism, our foreign-policy elites deluded themselves that by paying dictators and despots for the liquified, dead dinosaurs nature had deposited beneath the arbitrary national borders of Middle Eastern deserts, we would one day awake from our slumber to find functioning nation-states that had educated their people, industrialized their economy, and embraced the democratic model of government.

It would have been better for the world - and for the people of the Middle East - had we sent them our tanks instead of our petrodollars and simply taken the oil. At least we would have been forced to set up the infrastructure of democracy. Generations of Arab children would not have learned the lies of anti-Semitism now taught from birth by demented Arab despots, their imams and their abused and abased parents.

The Mideast is a colossal failure of leftist European and American pandering, self-loathing and moral insufficiency. The bill has come due and this generation is going to pay. Whether we stay or withdraw, as Spain learned on March 11, will have little bearing on the final cost.

Not only did we fail to appease our guilt-ridden consciences over the oil, we demanded that Israel, the only democracy in the Mideast, fail as well. Generations of Israelis have been sold the Chamberlandish lie that terrorism and appeasement is the price of existence in the Middle East. The West's "solution" has been "containment." What rubbish! Terrorism is the product of self-loathing and vacillation in the face of evil. Terrorism will end when the terrorists are dead.

World opinion is a fool's errand. It is a club that the weak fashion and then use to browbeat and extract favors from the powerful. It is a paper-mache tiger, as the USSR showed when it shot down a civilian Korean airliner for straying into communist airspace. The world's hat-in-hand dictators and tyrants, ever ready to line their pockets with another subsidy they can slip into some offshore bank account, safe from their citizens, never uttered a word of condemnation. But let the U.S. defend itself from the emissaries of the "religion of peace," and all hell breaks loose in the court of world opinion.

Europe is now a Muslim enclave, as Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci has detailed in her new book, "The Strength of Reason" (La Forza della Ragione). European society, such as it was, is in its demographic death-throes. It is a victim of the socialist pyramid scheme that depends on passing the bills to the next generation, but refuses to pay the cost of childbearing.

They desire that we should join the party. We must politely decline.

Craige McMillan is a commentator for WorldNetDaily. He is the founder of CC&M, an exciting new initiative to reshape the way America looks at and interacts with people of faith.

Crusade II: The sequel

Posted: November 21, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

"And I saw the heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and one sitting on it, called Faithful and True, and he judges and makes war in righteousness."
-Revelation 19:11

Much of the world does not yet know it, but mankind has entered into one of those long-forgotten periods from our past. We are in the beginning stages of a religious war. The West in particular, which has either atrophied or progressed (depending upon your point of view) from its Christian heritage to a secular society, has no concept of what this means.

Secularists view all religions as equal - and equally valid. They are merely expressions of human spirituality. Many today in the West hold this view because to secularists, all religions are nonsense. The universe exists as a byproduct of the "big bang," a cosmic accident, and human beings evolved from the chemicals splattered over rock and debris as it hurtled through space to its present destination. Tomorrow the universe will be different, we will be gone, and something else - or nothing - will take our place.

Seen from such a worldview, the idea that anyone would be willing to lift a finger, let alone detonate explosives wrapped around his body or fly planeloads of people into buildings to promote one brand of human spirituality over another, is to secular individuals, simply inconceivable. They are therefore unable to grasp the nature of the conflict. They imagine that militant Islam can be bought off with a few square miles of Palestinian "homeland," by more financial and food aid to the impoverished, and by the promise of democratically elected governments among the Islamic states exporting terror.

So prevalent is the West's secular worldview that our news services do not even bother to report the repeated demands that accompany Islamic terrorist claims of responsibility for mass human slaughter, and warnings of more to come unless we, the secularized and once Christian West, "abandon Israel and convert to Islam." Read the transcript of bin Laden's latest audiotape missive.

Religious people, whatever their faith, are better equipped to understand the nature and implications of worldwide religious warfare. Most religions share the common view that the universe was created by a powerful being, and that events in an unseen spiritual world can and do affect human beings in this world.

The late Francis Schaeffer once said that as a Christian he shared more in common with the Hindu seated next to him on a transatlantic flight than with the secular Western pilot of the aircraft - because the Hindu at least understood there was an unseen spiritual world. It necessarily follows that the truth or falsehood of what explains the unseen spiritual world is of paramount importance to believers. A religious conflict is over the truth or falsehood of those claims.

The Christian West once understood those claims and the nature of religious conflict. The Christian crusades were a widespread response to forced Islamic conversion through war and violence of large parts of the then-known world. The history of Islamic society and the West since then vindicates that response.

Islamic societies live under despotic regimes, men treat women as property, children are raised to become homicide bombers, and much of the population lives in unimaginable misery with little hope of anything better. The West, pursuing a vision built upon the unseen and seen worlds as revealed in the Bible has grown prosperous and free, which further ignites Islamic hatred.

Power abhors a vacuum, and religious power is no exception. Religious worldviews are powerful. As Islam has watched the Christian West disintegrate into battling secular enclaves, its adherents have sensed an opportunity to regain ground lost centuries ago.

The loose nukes and mutated petri dishes developed by the fractured, secularized West to deter one another are now within the grip of Islamic fanatics reliving the Middle
Ages. This is Islam's chance to conquer the developed world and force its people to pledge allegiance to Allah - or be slaughtered.

Much like secularists, Islamists actually believe they can appropriate the technological and human benefits of Western civilization for themselves, while changing the underlying structure of the society to Islam - or in the case of secularists - nothing. Both fail to understand that the benefits they seek to appropriate grew out of the Christian culture underlying them. Without the supporting understructure, the benefits collapse.

The Christian worldview teaches that we are near the point when God's patience with all this nonsense is due to expire. The Apostle John describes the encounter between a Holy God and his unrighteous creation this way:

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them." - Rev. 20:11

But perhaps your righteousness exceeds that of the rest of creation, and you have no need of "religious crutches." Go ahead and plead your case - everyone gets their chance. I know my failures, and I'm trusting that Jesus Christ is who he said he was. "Yes, guilty as charged, God, and sorry. But Jesus has already paid, and I'm coming home."

Craige McMillan is a commentator for WorldNetDaily. He is the founder of CC&M, an exciting new initiative to reshape the way America looks at and interacts with people of faith.

2004-04-05T22:22:00.000-04:00

Whether we want to admit it or not, "war" has been declared on the Western world, and history is being replayed -- in a global contest of ideologies reminiscent of the Crusades.

Surely our invasion of Iraq met the definition of a "just" war, and most concur that terrorism will only be abated through pre-emption. That said though, regional "hot-spots" remind us, that even the world's mightiest military may not prevail against a foe that "loves death more than life" -- unless it is combined with an unswerving national will.

Islamic scholar, Hugh Fitzgerald stated that "Jihad is rooted in central tenets of Islam as uncompromising hostility" towards unbelievers, and it's to be waged "until the final triumph." In our generation, over twenty nations have succumbed to this type of colonialism. So what choice are we left with but staying the course?

This month's commentaries, highlight the determined opposition that the Judeo-Christian world is forced to confront. However, this is not being accomplished through military might alone. Many would be surprised to learn that God is giving Egypt a central role in this Middle East challenge, where a mega-church in Cairo (a part of 600 other network churches) is using Arabs to bring Arabs to Christ.

It's at times a perplexing juxtaposition. Christians, as members of the "unarmed forces," have a mission-critical duality set before them -- balancing the moral imperatives of evangelizing the lost, while defending the world's freedom.

Speak No Evil

We live in interesting times when the current U.S. Administration must embark upon a policy that establishes a “shadow government” and deploys radiological sensors to major domestic metropolitan centers and border crossings. The executive branch is either engaged in theatrics of monumental proportion for its own ends, or it’s responsibly raising a tone of alarm to rally our national will. I choose to believe the latter. And while every generation has had its villains to contend with, the menace that the entire free world faces today, is for some reason seldom ever named by our public officials.

For reasons involving either fear of persecution and panic, or policies driven by pragmatism to outright appeasement—the world at large refuses to confront its chief threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as posed by the spread of radical Islam. However, from neighborhood to news media, from pulpit to politics, a more submissive public relations spin extols the virtues of Islam as a fundamentally “peace loving” religion that offers no threat. However, substituting Western ethics in place of the real objectives of the militant Muslim culture is done at our own peril. While protection for the plurality of belief systems has long been considered a basic human right in Western culture, world conquest amongst contending traditions within Islam will allow the free world no such quarter.

Sampling from amongst just a few courageous positions framed by credible sources from within the Muslim world, shows an emerging pattern of deceit and despotism as reported by:

Arab-American journalist, Nonie Darwish who in her March 2nd WorldNetDaily article entitled “The Arabs’ ‘Berlin Wall,’” exposed the rampant deception that’s inculcated at all levels of society amongst Arab-Muslims regarding their true intentions and beliefs against their world’s “infidels.” She states that “When Arabs are questioned on the reality of the behavior of Muslim terrorists trained in their country, they always answer by the idealism of Islam, saying ‘these are not true Muslims; Islam is a religion of peace.’” She goes on to report that while they confuse the reality of their culture with the idealism of their religion, they are in fact training, funding, and providing shelter for the terrorists. According to her assessment of this cultural double standard, she reports their capacity for “truth, logic, and appreciation of humanity are practically non-existent.”

New York Times syndicated columnist Tom Friedman, who exposed the battle for supremacy between the Iranian and Saudi traditions of Islam that espouse radical ideals for a “jihad by terror” which are promulgated in their schools, mosques, media and militia networks worldwide. Friedman’s columns have also identified the stratification of closed Muslim societies that sustain the deadly links between illegitimate despot, fundamentalist clerics and disenfranchised zealots. Most recently, he has also written of the Saudi monarchy’s pursuit of absolution by way of regurgitating the stale peace proposal that trades normalization of Arab relations for Israel’s retreat to their 1967 borders—an initiative that has no chance of success without a major overhaul of its untenable conditions.

Servant’s Heart, Executive Director, Dennis Bennett, who provided detailed accounts to US government officials of state-sponsored, systematic slaughter of Christian’s who do not submit to Islam in Sudan. Backed by Muslim clerics, the National Islamic Front regime in the Arab and Muslim north declared jihad, or holy war, on the south in 1989—a notion that was affirmed again last October by First Vice President, Ali Osman Taha when he stated, “The jihad is our way, and we will not abandon it.” The targeted abuse of Christian villagers in general and women in particular during these raids are shocking. Using Sudan’s oil revenues to fund their genocide, the gruesome choice of those who will not renounce their faith in Jesus Christ range from firing squads, to having a 3-inch nail driven through their skulls, to gang rape and mutilation of women, to graciously being sold into slavery.

The PBS video documentary ‘Jihad in America,’ which exposes the domestic threat that is unfolding in our own backyards by insurgent “sleeper” Muslim cells that foment hatred and terror through infiltration and the eventual assault on key targets within our open and free society.

From Algeria to Indonesia the story line is the same—radical Muslim insurgents are seeking to destabilize the current world order through spreading their perverted ideology and the use of terror. Without a doubt, as leader of the free world, America faces a long and protracted war, with our values of freedom and tolerance coming under assault from factions that promote this radical brand of Islam. How does this “close and present danger” compare to historic religious purges?

Some parallels with today’s menace can be drawn from history’s nominal Christian movements, namely periods that spawned the Crusades and Inquisitions.

This precedent for spilling another’s blood to advance a perspective of truth however, eventually gave way to what’s normative today in matters of faith—that judgment is reserved for God alone. Christianity reveals the God who instead offers forgiveness to the repentant and the means of His acceptance by grace in this dispensation. Somehow though, a growing percentage of Islam today remains in this violent 12th century time warp, with a mind-set that seeks to rid the world of the “infidel” influence by settling old scores through the scourge of terrorism.

According to Friedman, a prevalent Muslim conspiracy theory concludes that the Islamic world’s obscurity is inextricably tied to US-Israeli hegemony, and that somehow all of the Middle East’s problems would go away if tiny Israel were to disappear. Are we to really believe that 180 million Arabs need to be protected from 5 million Jews? Yet the specter of the liberating Muslim hero “Saladin” rides again in the maniacal personas of degenerates like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Yasser Arafat—who seek nothing less than world domination for some mythical Islamic society through the demise of the West, according to best-selling author Hal Lindsey.

Throughout the tragic saga of defending Israel’s right to exist, it is abundantly clear that when Arafat’s terror organizations purposely target civilian population centers, well intentioned calls for peace ring hollow if the enemy’s real intention is dedicated to the destruction of the Jews. Likewise, Israel’s current gamble, that attempts to drive the Palestinian Authority to its knees by applying increased military pressure—will not result in peace either, since living together in harmony was never part of Arafat’s scheme, as a proxy for radical Islam.

Unlike the Palestinian’s current death spiral though, resumption of prosperity and respect for the Muslim world at large is not a “zero-sum game.” Said differently, Islam can regain its noble status without resorting to attempts to destroy Judeo-Christian society and itself in the process. Radical Islam’s present course though resembles the “Afghanistan model,” where societal infrastructure is reduced to rubble and an entire generation has no other skill to offer than to make war. Though yet to be fully realized anywhere, the true secret to success for Islam is to be found instead by “beating their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.” It’s pragmatism built on peace that will win the world’s favor, and restore Islam’s reputation.

If Muslim nations really want to beat America and Israel at their own game, they should agree to objectively educate their children, to re-build the skills-base of their young people, and to divert funding for their national aspirations away from attacks on the West, in favor of a “guns to butter” strategy that redevelops their infrastructure and industry. Before this can happen though, Islamic leadership must renounce the use of terror as a means to effect change in every sphere of their influence—and from mosque to militant begin to stamp-out insurgent movements. Making substantial contributions toward war reparations—in effect taking responsibility for the menace that their leadership has spawned, could also have an endearing affect on the free world. But ideally, they need to begin the transition to open their societies, establish democratic rule, and in so doing—give their disenfranchised masses a reason for hope.

By muting the message that “evil will never advance good” for Islam, while hoping to achieve orderly change within the radical Muslim elements is tantamount to “burying our heads in the sand” and declaring “peace in our time” again. Now that terrorism has the means to destroy us, even an entire society of “Neville Chamberlains” will not be able to avert this lunatic fringe from their diabolical quest. If we thought the events of 9/11 led to pandemonium—just wait till terrorists decide to detonate even an unsophisticated “dirty bomb” that’s designed to spew radiation poison over major population centers, rendering huge areas of U.S. cities uninhabitable for a generation.

Does history’s brief test of free democratic republics have to end at the hands of despotic regimes? We are at war with an ideology that claims Islam as its spiritual father. Unless America plans to abdicate its role as leader of the free world, we need to open our eyes what’s happening, listen to something other than pacifist talk of appeasement, and—speak-out against the evil that is within our midst. What’s at stake is something far greater than the risk of offending our listener.

Roy Tanner

A People We Love…to Hate

"Therefore, say to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord God, 'It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name… And I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord,' declares the Lord God, 'when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight. For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land.” (Ezekiel 36:22-24).

When asked by CNN recently, why he declined the invitation to join the Israeli delegation to the Aqaba peace summit, Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said he had serious reservations about Palestinian readiness to implement the 'road map' and to accept Israel as a Jewish state. "We've been down this road before," said Netanyahu. "Until the Palestinians teach their children to accept Israel; until they actually go out and arrest, and even fight terrorists; and until they drop the right of return, this will remain a 'flowery path' we've been down before."

Can autonomous Palestinian and Jewish states ever expect to live side by side in peace? A decade ago, under the Oslo accords, the Palestinians pledged to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist. Then too, land was to be "traded" for peace—but Palestinian attacks never ceased. Yet the provisions of the "new" road map attempt to satisfy the same objectives as the disastrous Oslo deal. While I want to be optimistic, why does anyone expect a different outcome with this latest initiative?

A better question would be, “what would it take for Muslim nations to repent of their religiously inspired passion to destroy the state of Israel?” The so-called “Palestinians,” are really a mixture of migrant émigrés from nomadic Arab descendants, Egypt and Jordan. Consequently, history suggests it’s improbable that the Arabs will be able to undo the influence of a religion that is the extension of Ishmael and Esau's 4,000-year-old hatred of Isaac and Jacob—the forefathers of the Arabs and the Israelis.

Still it begs the question, what is the crux of the issue that generates such animosity between these ancient cultures? Moreover, what accounts for the historic persecution of the Jews, and the rise of anti-Semitism throughout Europe we see today? As a culture, the Jews are some of the most talented, resourceful and civil people who have ever inhabited the planet. Their contributions to mankind in the areas of law, the sciences and the arts, permeate Western culture.

Yet even within sects of Christendom—among believers that acknowledge a common spiritual heritage with Judaism, the Jewish people remain convenient “scapegoats.” While rightly preaching Christ as the fulfillment of the (Torah) Law and the prophets, they also ascribe the Biblical promises made to Israel unto their selves, ex post facto. Based on allegorical interpretation of Scripture, this “replacement theology” fails to discern the distinctions between the irrevocable promises made to Israel and those made to the Church.

But the Jews take it all in stride. This a people that has overcome: slavery in Egypt, conquest by the Greeks and Romans, the inquisition in Spain, the pogroms in Russia, the holocaust in Hitler’s Germany, and multiple wars initiated by their Arab neighbors. Today the democratic state of Israel comprises only a fraction of its historic Davidic Empire, and what the UN sanctioned in ‘48 was 65% desert. Since then though, re-gathered Israel has literally made the desert bloom, as evidenced by their exports in agriculture and technology.

Is it possible there is a connection between their indestructible vitality as a people—against insurmountable odds, and the inexplicable loathing they receive from other nations? Hmm…maybe we should allow for the possibility that the Jews are in fact a “chosen people” of God (Isa. 44). Think about it. In a world that is repulsed by the suggestion that we really are accountable to a god other than ourselves—a world that heaps scorn upon the very idea of “one true God,” shouldn’t we expect His people would be hated as well?

Surely, God has wonderfully utilized His people Israel after all, for our good and His glory (Rom. 11). By way of His inscrutable design, one day all that was prophesied, from privilege to persecution to millennial predominance of the Jewish people—will evoke only our love for God and gratitude for His people Israel.

Roy Tanner

The Test of Peace

In the aftermath of terrorist strikes upon America’s most prominent symbols of commerce and military might, it seems as if previous calls for vengeance upon these shadowy perpetrators have been reduced in some circles to “second guessing” our administration’s declaration of war, as being too provocative. Instead of a putting our nation on a “war footing,” we hear calls for a “measured response,” and appeals for pursuing only the “legal means” of apprehending the “individuals” involved, in order that justice may be served, and peace may be restored.

The administration’s declaration of war however, was a deliberate course of action intended to broaden the aperture of retaliation options against the forces of hatred, destruction and anarchy that oppose U.S. interests. Surely the unprovoked, indiscriminant carnage visited upon thousands of innocent citizens –on American soil, set a dangerous new precedent that outstrips any recourse by way of “individual” legal means. As a result, our sustained federal and military response should be of sufficient scope to completely debilitate terrorism.

While the Christian admonishment to forgive and “turn the other cheek” should be the goal for interpersonal relationships, it was never intended for governing sovereign nations. In a perfect world, achieving a “lasting peace” would require forgiveness –or forbearing our right to retaliate. However, such an act of mercy could only be extended where there is the admission of guilt, accompanied by change in demeanor, evidenced by redressing the wrongs committed.

The test of peace for fanatics and the Islamic regimes that support them, can only be passed by renouncing the use of terrorism as a means of change, especially within the democratic societies of America, Israel and our allies. As long as the flames of generational hatred for Judaism and Christianity are stoked by the official pronouncements and inculcated through teachings from Islamic factions in Muslim mosques, schools, and training camps –there can be no peace. Sadly, we are left with the policy of, “Allow them to hate us, so long as they still fear.”

Roy Tanner

2004-03-25T10:07:00.000-05:00

To the extent that the Lord Jesus rules and reigns in the hearts of believers, the promises of "Kingdom" living are availed to each of us here and now. As regents of His Kingdom on earth, the Master graciously extends us the privilege of participating in the work of building His Church for humanity's good and His glory.

With this "great commission" in mind, Regent Forum has posted three articles this month that discuss the challenges and opportunities that are set before us globally, nationally and within the Church itself.

Pax Domini

When it comes to strife, it seems “everything that’s old is new again,” especially as it relates to events in the Middle East. Unless a suitable formula for peace is found soon, the ancient hatreds in this volatile region, taken to their logical conclusion—will one day draw the world into a future conflagration of Biblical proportions. How close we are to midnight on the theoretical doomsday clock is anyone’s guess. But if we are to have any hope of being saved from this fate, a new emphasis must be placed on the only levers that have ever motivated mankind—interest or fear.

The world’s preoccupation with a Mid-East peace is based on achieving a level of stability that ensures the continued supply and distribution of the region’s oil reserves. The purveyors of this fossil fuel however encircle the contested land of Israel—with the sovereignty of Jerusalem at stake. Achieving harmony amongst these different worldviews, from a region that has spawned three of the world's major faiths, remains an enigma that demands the world’s attention. Although they share a common ancestry through Abraham, the fundamental tenets of Islam, Judaism and Christianity cannot be reconciled—framing the real crux of these regional tensions.

The surrounding Arab regimes in this melee are sustained by self-appointed, often dictatorial rule over a largely uneducated populace through a compulsory belief system that assails modernity. Islam’s once proud heritage of thought leadership in the arts and sciences, have long since been overshadowed by the tendency of their closed societies to breed and stage terrorism. This environment has proven ideal for those allied with insurgent movements, acting as surrogates to covertly wage war against Israel and its chief ally, the United States. Proliferation of missile technology by these agents to rogue states also constitutes a serious threat to Mid-East stability. By comparison, the Arab plight that links the despot, the fundamentalist cleric dogma and the destitute zealots—provides stark contrast to a stable, prosperous and democratic state of Israel.

As the dominant military power in the region, Israel has emerged virtually unscathed by Arab instigated wars in 1948, ’56, ’67 and ‘73. Since its’ reformation in 1948, Israel has also enjoyed unequivocal support from successive US administrations, projecting the strength of the world’s only remaining super-power to the region. However, to maintain a semblance of order between opposing Mid-East factions, Israel’s military prowess has been bridled when confronting the guerilla-style insurgency that has arisen from spurious claims to land-rights for emigrating Arabs—ostensibly known as “Palestinians.” With secure access to the region’s energy resources at stake, the US-Israeli alliance—designed to create a unilateral deterrent, curiously acts as a vacuum for opposing world powers as well. This chess-game of problematic issues sustains the cycle of strife and misery for both sides here, raising the specter of new attacks from surrounding Arab nations and their surrogate patrons.

What’s to become of this “Gordian knot” of issues that fuels both religious hatred, as well as secular threats to world peace? By searching the prophetic texts found in Scripture, history’s final chapter for this region has already been penned. According to these texts, this generation will witness both the acceptance of a pretentious peace treaty, as well as new offensive campaigns launched against Israel. While these events are prophesied as an inevitable course for the nations involved, the individuals that comprise these factions are not left without personal recourse for realizing an ultimate peace. Rescue from what’s predicted to befall this region though, will require the fortitude of personal introspection and the muting of cultural pride. While the proponents of these contending faiths have debated for ages, the key determinant of any faith’s validity can be reduced to a simple yet profound litmus test—does it pardon, does it save?

To provide context for this standard consider the faith of Islam, which today boasts more than a billion adherents worldwide. The Islamic faith remains essentially unchanged from its original composition by the prophet Mohammed in the 7th century. For all its noble tenets and strictures, Islam has no precedent for personal relationship with the Almighty or atonement for personal sin. This places the faith of Islam squarely in the camp of other belief systems that depend upon a “works” righteousness, or human achievement to win favor from their God. Since no attainable standard is articulated however, Muslims have no apparent means to secure their standing or receive forgiveness—only the foreboding, eventual reckoning with Allah’s justice. Yet this precarious belief system is thrust upon many societies worldwide under the threat of death.

Islam in summary makes no provision for the concept of grace or mercy. Obtaining grace relies on a theological concept found only in the Judeo-Christian doctrine of atonement, which enables God to accomplish something for mankind that we would never achieve on our own—perfection. The unmerited favor of grace, assumes that we’re accountable to a sovereign Creator who demands that justice be served, yet He provides the means to this perfect standard through His compensating love. In deed, God’s promise to reconcile humanity to Himself was accomplished at Calvary, such that those who put their trust in Christ's “saving” work are set free from both the penalty and the power of their waywardness. This standard by grace, acts as history’s fulcrum.

Because sovereign omnipotence by definition is an attribute of God alone, it’s been said that all of history is the outworking of His story. While God is not the author of chaos or evil, He has by design entrusted mankind with personal responsibility, bound only by free moral agency. Even though misuse of this volition is responsible for the inhumane acts visited upon this world, it was a necessary precondition for humanity if it was to fulfill the grander purpose for which it was created—to personally engage in relationship with the Almighty, by grace through faith.

History will record that it was Israel’s failure to fulfill their herald’s role, extending God’s invitation to the world—that brought about their subsequent judgment as a nation and dispersion throughout the world. Today, while the Jewish state has effectively been re-gathered, it has reemerged largely as a secular nation, still under persecution and no longer in search of the promised Messiah. Fortunately, the promises of God to His chosen people are irrevocable, and Israel’s greatest days are yet future, at which time their blindness will be removed.

Like the Jewish people who preceded them, the mantle for proclaiming God’s desire to be reconciled to mankind was later entrusted to American Christendom, as a country founded on the premise of religious freedom. Now in its own post-Christian era, the US too has lost the distinctive momentum that their trust in God initially set in motion. Current policy initiatives of this US administration notwithstanding, the pervasive secular outlook of America—if left unchecked will surely plunge it headlong into obscurity. In fact, the eclipse of American dominance may well be brought about by the corresponding rise of a reunified Europe.

In deed, the European Union that is in place today serves as the latest fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. As their chronologies intertwined with Israel, the empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome where displaced as prophesied, setting the stage for an end-time reunification of Europe. From this latter-day power will come a charismatic leader who will both negotiate and ultimately break a diabolical 7-year peace treaty between Israel and her neighboring enemies? Challenges to this leader’s global power at the end of this period also set in motion a final conflict, which ushers in God’s direct intervention, the consummation of history, and the beginning of the millennial Pax Domini—Messianic rule from Jerusalem.

In the final analysis, world peace will ultimately be realized on God’s terms, albeit at the expense of nations who wage their insurrection against the Almighty in vain. Although a sovereign God has predetermined this outcome, the choice of peace over peril has been extended throughout history—by grace through faith. Every other approach to earn God’s favor—whether the 5 pillars of Islam, the iteration of religious ritual, or even Judaism without a Savior, is destined to wind-up as a tragic footnote in the history of mankind—as another vain attempt to satisfy human pride.

Roy Tanner

Till Kingdom Come, American Citizen

”Therefore…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world”…(Philippians 2:12-15 NKJ)

Have you noticed the quiet resurgence of America’s conservative movement recently? For example, four years ago the nation put a conservative president into the White House. Two years ago both houses of Congress added to their conservative majorities. And without much fan-fare, last year’s election ensured a majority of conservative governors now lead state houses across the nation.

This year's coming election however, promises to hold some of the most vitriolic and raucous political contests ever witnessed, pitting conservative incumbents against the “intellectual elite” who seem willing to resort to just about anything to reacquire power. So, in many respects these are the best (and worst) of times. It seems the American experiment that started with the pilgrims, has drifted dangerously off-course since then, in terms of the ideals we hold dear. As such, we find ourselves at a cultural crossroads today.

Data from Barna Research suggests America’s moral perspectives are continuing to degenerate. They go on to state that our moral climate will not improve unless “strong and appealing moral leadership emerges to challenge and redirect people’s thoughts and behavior.” Within this context, what is it that Christians in American culture are called to do today? While the opening passage (above) answers this question, we seem to be split by a polarity of opposing camps advocating pietisms on one hand, and quietism on the other. While no one disagrees that we’re called to pursue our individual maturity in Christ and proclaim the Gospel, “how” we carryout these dual imperatives are matters of much debate.

Should Christians strive to advance a godly public agenda, or just “let go and let God?” I believe the answer is both, as these are two sides of the same coin. We show our world the beauty of righteousness, while resting in the sovereign power of God’s love. Polling data reveals that non-believers are seeking evidence that Christianity is truly life transforming. Individually, we need to “walk the talk” in our homes, communities and at work. Nationally, we must continue to “talk the walk,” as the promoters and defenders of freedom—“endowed by our Creator with inherent rights.” Together, America’s 90 million born again adults comprise an ever-growing percentage of the electorate. As keepers of the flame, are we not to be the champions of the Judeo-Christian ethic in Western culture—especially if we have the mind of Christ?

As for our plight, I am reminded of the book Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift, which is best understood as a satire on 18th century morals and thought. In Book I of the story, the small size of the Lilliputians is in inverse proportion to the amount of their corruption. Today, albeit for different reasons, the Lilliputians could easily represent the liberal movement in America. Although relatively small in number, they hold sway over a slumbering conservative majority through control of the media, academia and the courts.

Liberal domination in America though, is a recent phenomenon. The America I know rose to prominence in large part because of a tradition of thrift, energy and intellect that its Puritan founders set in motion. Their lives were a direct outgrowth of their Christian faith. That we’re referred to as a Christian nation today, originates from the tradition of passing our faith and practice to the next generation. Unfortunately, an erosion of these Godly influences and values has accelerated during our generation.

Today’s noisy and rebellious coalition of liberal activists seems bent on removing all vestiges of Christianity from the public square. Under the ruse of “separating church and state” they really seek to “banish their most savage critic”—the Almighty. Try as they may, to scour the landscape of our traditions, they will not succeed, for the Critic lives within us. As temples of the Holy Spirit, Christians remain humanity’s last best hope to reach a world in spiritual darkness. And by His grace we will prevail.

I’ve read the Book. I know how it ends—and it’s glorious (Rev. 21). But until that day, let’s stay vigilant and persevere by remembering who we are and why we’re here. We are called to be light bearers to our generation—till Kingdom come, as American citizens.

Roy Tanner

“You are the light of the world…let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (Matt. 5:14, 16 NIV)

Gimme That Ole-Time Religion

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way, which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14 NKJ)

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work…Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”
(2 Timothy 3:16-17; 4:1-5 NKJ)

Apostasy results when the Church conforms to the secular culture around it. So who’s influencing whom in American Christendom today? And if the Church here is losing its distinctiveness, what can be done about it? With these challenging questions in mind, consider the following article (excerpt) written by Gene Edward Veith, entitled “Unbelieving ‘born-agains’.”

“Research continues to reveal a steady theological collapse among professing Christians in America.

Secularists, liberals, and Muslims do not need to fear conservative Christians, says Dave Shiflett in The Wall Street Journal. Christians, he says, are not all that interested in converting the heathen. They don't really believe that there is such a thing as the heathen, tending to believe instead that every religion is equally valid. Even the most feared of Christians—the dread 'born-agains' who have cost the high priests at People for the American Way so much sleep—often embrace the modern orthodoxies of tolerance and inclusion over the traditional teachings of their faith.

He cites poll data from Christian researcher George Barna that 26 percent of even “born-agains” believe all religions are essentially the same and that 50 percent believe that a life of good works will enable a person to get to heaven. He goes on, though, to cite data that cast doubt on whether some of these born-again Christians will be there. More than one in three (35 percent) born-again Christians do not believe that Jesus rose physically from the dead. Slightly more born-again Christians believe in the devil than believe in the Holy Spirit... Ten percent believe in reincarnation. Twenty-nine percent believe it is possible to communicate with the dead.

As for moral issues, one out of three born-again Christians (33 percent), according to Mr. Barna's numbers, accepts same-sex unions. More than one out of three (39 percent) believe it is morally acceptable for couples to live together before marriage. And, significantly, born-again Christians are more likely than non-Christians to have experienced divorce (27 percent vs. 24 percent)…

Obviously this is strong evidence of how American Christianity is conforming to the dominant secular culture. It is all right to be religious, according to the dictates of postmodernism, as long as your faith exists just in your head. If you start claiming that your beliefs are more than just a private mental state that makes you feel good, asserting instead that what you believe is objectively real and valid for everybody, then you are an intolerant menace to society…

(The article goes on to report that) Preachers sometimes exhort people to "invite Jesus into your heart" without proclaiming whom Jesus is and what He has done for sinners. This is evangelism that forgets to preach the gospel. The result will be "non-evangelical born-agains." New Christians, like babies, need to be fed, taught, and cared for; otherwise, they will die in their cribs. What they need is intensive nourishment from the Word of God.”

Bad theology is often the offspring of those who marry secular marketing technique with church growth theory. Yes, we can draw crowds with preaching that offers blessings without need of God’s forgiveness, and His salvation apart from their repentance. But, ministry is to build depth (Eph. 4:12), while God supplies breadth (Acts 2:47). Apparently, we’re doing a great job of attracting, and romancing unbelievers—but now that we have their attention, what are we really teaching them? Perhaps a better balance can be struck between our “thinking globally and acting locally.”

Surely, we are to have ambitious plans for the advancement of the kingdom, and yes, we are called to be culturally relevant. But in our approach to reach the world, we seem to have adopted a fractured world-view, splintered across myriad affinity groups and community outreach programs that individually target the post-modern’s: boomers, busters, crooks, cults, gen-Xers, Jews, Muslims, seekers, singles, seniors, …and any other demographic dimension you can imagine. But if all of our demonstrated empathy to attract the lost doesn’t ultimately lead to their repentance, why bother going through the motions?

Unfortunately, in the process of attempting to accommodate such diversity, we’re also tempted to embrace a tolerance for “broad road” views that seem to be elevating human wisdom over that of God’s. We are called to enter the “narrow gate” and maybe that requires we advocate people first count the cost of having the Lord be Savior. If salvation is a work of God (Jn. 6:65), why do we feel that anyone other than the elect will respond in a genuine fashion to the Gospel anyway? Sadly, both our methods and the message tend to be compromised in our outreach approaches.

As an international cultural strategist and lead pastor of Mosaic Church, Erwin McManus circumnavigates worldview barriers differently. His outreach includes a populace so diverse that they share few of our Christian presuppositions. McManus suggests that regardless of what cultural bent we start with, the “touch-points” that all of humanity will resonate with include: that life has meaning, that a significant destiny awaits each of us, and that these are found in the context of community, as part of the family of God. He reports that once they establish a relationship of trust on these fronts (with any affinity group), seekers embrace the Gospel message.

As for post-conversion progress, statistics also bear-out an abysmal grasp of even the historic fundamentals of the faith including: the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith (in Christ), and the inspiration-inerrancy of Scripture. Aside from evangelicals, there also seems to be little that’s being taught to advance even a modest understanding of hermeneutics, for appropriating Biblical truth. At a minimum, American congregants need to identify with the dispensational truth of the “Church age” across four broad themes, namely that we are to be: saved, sanctified, Spirit-filled and (dare I say it) that we be prepared to suffer for our uncompromising faith.

Essentially, the Church is called to be distinctive, and not perceived as “lukewarm”(Rev. 3:14-22). As a result, we need to stay committed to preaching the full counsel of God in an unadulterated fashion (Acts 2:38-41). In addition to staying true to the “ole time” message, we need to reinforce the pulpit’s impact in at least three key areas when it comes to our core membership tracks:

First and foremost, we need to adequately equip our people such that they clearly understand what they believe and why. According to Josh McDowell, we’re in dire need of a revolution—a “CrossCulture” revolution. (www.mycrossculture.com/overview.spl)

Second, it should be a fundamental tenant that believers be instructed on how to share their faith. Willow Creek’s training approach leverages personality styles and contagious relationships in evangelism. (http://www.willowcreek.com/conferences/evangelism)

And third, we need to inculcate a life of stewardship with our time, talents, and resources, in order to staff and fund the work of the kingdom. Crown Ministries plans to train 300 million people by 2015 in these areas. (www.cfcministry.org/other/about.asp)

Ultimately, God will add to the Church those who have been elected for salvation (Acts 13:48). With the enormous privilege of participating in His outworking, let’s be mindful of Jude’s exhortation to the Church, that when it comes to our faith and practice—we are to (by all means) “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

Roy Tanner