Column/Legend
1 - Prefix  - L-Life,  H-Homosexual Behavior/Perversion, R-Religion/Legal Persecution/ACLU, E-Education, M-Media Bias, O-Other
2-7 - Yr, Mo, Dy
8 - L -Letter to Editor, C-Commentary, O-Op-Ed, M-Metro

Hotlink Index of this weeks's family values related news:  [Life]   [Homosexual Behavior/Perversion]   [Religion/Religious Persecution]   [Education]   [Media]   [Other]

LIFE
L050125      Bush backs proposed pro-life bills
L050125      Bush buoys pro-lifers
L050125      Supreme Court refuses 'Terri's Law'
L050125      Thousands protest Roe v. Wade
L050125C    Fate and Roe v. Wade
L050126      Hillary in the middle on values issues
L050126L    Who's 'out of step'?
L050127      Woman settles with clinic in suit over abortion risks
L050128      Abortion anchor

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050125     GLAAD-handing
H050125     Try, try again
H050126     Bush backpedal on marriage irks right
H050126Va Proposal would ban gays from adopting children
H050127     Gays make taxing choice
H050128      Not so GLAAD
H50126Md  Protesters call for marriage amendment

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R050124       MICHIGAN
R050124       NEW HAMPSHIRE
R050125       Republicans more resolute, poll finds
R050125       Scalia's advice
R050125L     Founding Fathers of faith
R050126       Priest warned boy not to 'tell'
R050127       Virginia Episcopals to discuss ordination
R050130Va  Virginia Episcopalians 'express regret'

EDUCATION
E050126     Sex-ed courses called flawed

MEDIA
M050126     Oscar nods overlook 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
M050126     Rolling Stone relents on Bible-ad rejection
M050127     Spellings wants PBS money back
M050128     Super Bowl show vows to keep it clean
M050128     Lefty 'centrists'

OTHER
O050125      Republicans, Democrats offer rival Senate agendas
O050127C    Second-term values agenda
O050128E    Metro must accept pro-marijuana ads
O050128E    Sex, truth and videotape
O050128L    Liberals don't get it
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

RICHMOND — Lawmakers in Virginia this week are expected to endorse several measures in support of traditional marriage, a move they say is necessary because they believe the institution is under attack.
    The Senate will debate the merits of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The proposal, authored by Sen. Stephen D. Newman, would place the question on state ballots in November 2006.
    The Lynchburg Republican said his amendment is a defensive measure to prevent the recognition of same-sex unions performed in other states.
    "I do not believe that we are here because those individuals who want to defend marriage brought us here," he said. "We are here because there is another element in America today that has made it very clear that going after the current definition of marriage and changing that definition of marriage is a stated goal."
    Virginia law already only recognizes a marriage between a man and a woman. It does not recognize same-sex unions performed in other states.
    The Senate Privileges and Elections Committee passed Mr. Newman's amendment. Three Democrats voted against it.
    The House has several identical constitutional amendments pending in the House Privileges and Elections Committee.
    Both chambers are likely to approve the amendments, which do not need the approval of Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat, to be implemented.
    Last year, 13 states defined marriage with constitutional amendments. There are now 17 states that recognize only traditional marriage.
    The Family Foundation of Virginia, a conservative family-values group that supports the amendment, said it believes the measure will pass quickly since Republicans and Democrats alike have voted for it.
    "The effort of pro-homosexual groups to redefine marriage through the courts leaves the General Assembly with no choice but to protect the definition of marriage," said Victoria Cobb, the group's executive director.
    Equality Virginia, the state's primary homosexual-rights group, has vowed to lobby against the amendments and to push for the repeal of a civil-unions ban lawmakers passed overwhelmingly last year.
    The civil-unions ban, which is an amendment to the state's Affirmation of Marriage Act, prohibits recognition of same-sex unions performed in other states. The amendment, which took effect last July, also bans "partnership contracts" or other arrangements between homosexuals.
    The new law sparked statewide protest, and a lawsuit challenging the ban is pending.
    Delegate Mitchell van Yahres, Charlottesville Democrat, tried to repeal the civil- unions ban, but his bill was rejected on a 17-3 vote in the House Courts of Justice Committee.
    Dyana Mason, Equality Virginia's executive director, said her organization believes an amendment would "codify discrimination."
    Kim I. Mills, a board member with the local homosexual-rights group Equality Fairfax, said she opposes the amendments.
    "There's no reason for it," she said. "Equality Fairfax hopes lawmakers pass laws to make all the citizens of Virginia equal."
    Meanwhile, the House today is scheduled to debate a bill that would create a special license plate for the supporters of traditional marriage.
    Delegate L. Scott Lingamfelter, Prince William County Republican, said proceeds from the sale of the plates would go to the state's general fund.
    The House Transportation Committee passed the bill on a 13-7 vote. Three Republicans and four Democrats voted against it.
    Miss Mills said she believes the plates are unnecessary.
    "If the legislature in its wisdom decides to approve this, I'd like to see a plate that talks about supporting equality and equal marriage rights," she said.
    • This article is based in part on wire service reports.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050201Va    Marriage license plate gets OK
 

By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

RICHMOND — Lawmakers yesterday gave preliminary approval to a bill that would create a special license plate for supporters of traditional marriage, despite objections from Democrats who said the bill was unconstitutional.
    Republicans cut off debate on the legislation after just 10 minutes, and the full House quickly endorsed the bill on a voice vote. Lawmakers are expected to take a final and recorded vote today.
    Delegate Brian J. Moran, Alexandria Democrat, tried to amend the bill by deleting the word "traditional" so the plate simply would say it supports marriage.
    "What we're about to buy is a lawsuit that we clearly will lose. ... That's not the way we should spend our hard-earned taxpayer dollars," Mr. Moran said. "I suspect we all support marriage, in fact, probably many of us have tried it more than once."
    Mr. Moran said because the message is political, a court will rule that it is unconstitutional and require the state to create a "marriage equality" or "gay marriage" plate. His amendment was defeated.
    Delegate L. Scott Lingamfelter said his bill is "neutral," not political.
    "We will be giving Virginians who subscribe to the wisdom of 4,000 years of transcendent history a chance to show their support for an institution that is absolutely fundamental to any civilized society," the Prince William County Republican said. "We will also be showing our children that we understand that traditional marriage is fundamental to the way family life is organized in civilized society."
    Delegate Adam P. Ebbin, the legislature's only openly homosexual member, said he opposes the bill because of its political nature.
    "There is a forum on our car, and it is called the bumper, where we can put a bumper sticker that says whatever we want," the Arlington Democrat said. "I don't see the threats to traditional marriage or any kind of marriages being the other drivers on the roadway. This plate, if I understand correctly, would be available to adulterers, divorced people, those who have married multiple times, even those who engage in sex outside of a marital relationship."
    Mr. Ebbin said there are more than 200 special license plates, none of which are political in nature. Several of those plates, including a "master gardener" plate that the House approved yesterday, requires an application and written proof that shows that the buyer is a "master gardener."
    Mr. Ebbin tried to continue his argument by suggesting that the "traditional marriage" plate also should require some documentation. But, he was interrupted by Republicans who used a procedural maneuver to end debate.
    The "traditional marriage" license plate would feature two interlocked golden wedding bands over a red heart. Proceeds from the sale of the plates would go to the state's general fund.
    The bill passed the House Transportation Committee on a 13-7 vote.
    Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat, said although he supports traditional marriage, he thinks that it is a bad idea to put politics on a license plate. Homosexual rights groups said they think the plates are a waste of money and are discriminatory.

    The House yesterday unanimously approved a bill that would designate a 300-year-old highway between Manassas and Dumfries in honor of the late President Ronald Reagan.
    A bill offered by Mr. Lingamfelter would allow state officials to recognize the 40th president by designating the heavily traveled Route 234 Bypass between Route 1 and Interstate 66 in Prince William County as the "Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial Highway."
    The bill now goes to the Senate Transportation Committee.

    The House yesterday tentatively approved legislation to tighten abortion clinic regulations.
    The bill by Delegate John S. Reid, Henrico County Republican, would require any clinic that performs 25 or more first-trimester abortions a year to be licensed and meet the same standards as ambulatory surgery centers. Currently, the clinics are treated like doctors' offices and are not routinely inspected by the state.
    A final House vote is expected today.
    The House has overwhelmingly passed similar legislation two years in a row only to see it killed by the Senate Education and Health Committee, which is chaired by a moderate Republican.
    Mr. Reid said the intent of the bill is to see that abortions "are performed in as sterile and as safe an environment as possible."
    Delegate Vivian E. Watts, Fairfax County Democrat, said the intention of the bill "is to significantly reduce the number of abortions by making them extremely expensive."

    A House committee has voted to expand use of the death penalty to include gang-related killings.
    Delegate David B. Albo, Fairfax County Republican, said his bill provides a very narrow addition to the 11 factors that can lead to the death penalty in Virginia. The legislation would include a person who kills at the behest of a gang leader or to meet a requirement for gang membership.

    A Senate committee yesterday endorsed legislation that would allow convicted felons who plead guilty to bring newly discovered evidence of actual innocence to the Virginia Court of Appeals.
    The state already allows DNA evidence to be presented to prove innocence.
    The General Assembly last year eliminated Virginia's "21-day rule," which required new evidence to be presented no later than three weeks after sentencing. But the new rules opened the process only to felons who pleaded not guilty at trial and limits them to one petition.
    The legislation sent to the Senate floor yesterday by the Courts of Justice Committee would remove that limit.

    A bill to allow public-school buses to transport private-school students appears headed for final passage today in the House.
    Supporters said that parents of private-school children pay taxes for education and that being able to use public-school buses on common routes is only fair. Opponents warned that the legislation could stretch school bus systems too thin.
    • This article is based in part on wire service reports.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050201   Ouster of gay partner 'negative'
 

By Tom Stuckey
ASSOCIATED PRESS

ANNAPOLIS — A court ruling forcing a homosexual father's partner to move out of the house where the father is raising his 12-year-old son "has been so negative for the child in so many ways," the father's attorney said yesterday.
    "It's very upsetting to the child. He wants his father's partner to be able to move back in, and they can just resume their normal family life," said Shannon Minter, attorney for Ulf Hedberg.
    Mr. Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, filed a brief with the Court of Special Appeals yesterday, asking the court to dissolve a Virginia court order prohibiting Blaise Delahoussaye from living in the house with Mr. Hedberg and his son.
    "The son just misses the partner very much. He had been living with them 5½ years from about 4 to 9½. It's very upsetting to the child," Mr. Minter said.
    According to court papers, after Mr. Hedberg and the boy's mother, Annica Detthow, separated in 1996, Mr. Delahoussaye moved in with the father and son. Three years later, the two men bought a house together, and Mr. Delahoussaye played an active role in raising the boy.
    But in 2000, when the mother moved to Florida, she sought custody of the boy. A judge in Alexandria awarded joint legal custody to the parents, but gave Mr. Hedberg primary physical custody with the condition that Mr. Delahoussaye move out of the house.
    The two men then moved to Montgomery County and rented separate apartments. Mr. Hedberg filed suit in Montgomery County Circuit Court to dissolve the Virginia court order, but the lawsuit was dismissed.
    Mrs. Detthow is opposing the move to dissolve the Virginia order, but "has no objection to the father and her son living in Maryland" and is not seeking to alter the custody judgment, said her attorney, Patrick Stiehm.
    "She is satisfied with the way things have gone to this point. She sees no reason for making that one particular change," Mr. Stiehm said.
    He would not elaborate on why Mrs. Detthow does not want the order prohibiting Mr. Delahoussaye's living with her former husband and her son changed.
    Mr. Minter said that because of the additional financial burden of maintaining two households, Mr. Hedberg and Mr. Delahoussaye had to sell the Virginia house and moved to smaller apartments in Maryland.
    "The father has lost the tremendous benefit of having a second person on the scene to help with chores and dinner and caretaking, so he's been able to spend less time with the child," Mr. Minter said.
    Two national homosexual rights organizations — Lambda Legal and National Center for Lesbian Rights — are supporting Mr. Hedberg's lawsuit.
    "This child's world was turned upside down all because a Virginia court issued a knee-jerk, anti-gay custody restriction," said Susan Sommer, supervising attorney at Lambda Legal. "He lost his home, his school, his park and, most importantly, the proximity of the caring adult who has helped raise him."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050202   Billboard asserts that homosexuals can change
 

By Jen Hoffman
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A national group has posted a billboard in Rockville that says homosexuals can become heterosexuals, a message critics say is misleading and only persecutes homosexuals.
    The billboard, on Hungerford Drive, states, "Ex-gays prove that change is possible."
    Next to the message is a photograph of a smiling young man.
    Officials with the Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays (PFOX), a nonprofit advocate for the ex-homosexual community, said people can choose to change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation.
    "We believe that no one is born with same-sex attractions," said Richard Cohen, a former homosexual who is the group's president.
    Homosexual rights activists said the billboard is offensive.
    "It's an ugly, destructive message that persecutes gay people," said Wayne Besen, a homosexual activist and author of "Anything But Straight."
    Officials with Equality Maryland, a homosexual rights group, agreed.
    "If it wasn't so sad that people are spending so much money, energy and time that could be used on something constructive, like dealing with tsunami victims, it would be ludicrous," said Dan Furmansky, the group's executive director.
    The billboard was put up in mid-January, and PFOX group officials say they will keep it posted for a short period of time because they have limited funds.
    The sign was funded by families who are involved in the organization's "ex-gay" program, said Regina Griggs, the group's executive director.
    "We do not have a single organization or church that is funding that billboard," she said. "It's all an independent effort."
    PFOX has chapters in 18 states and the District. Officials said they chose to display the billboard in Rockville because the city is close to the group's headquarters in Northern Virginia.
    "We also have about 40 families involved in the program that live in [Montgomery County]," Mrs. Griggs said. "It made perfect sense to put it up here."
    The Montgomery County Council has not received any telephone calls or letters complaining about the billboard's location or content, said Michael Faden, a staff lawyer for the council.
    The American Civil Liberties Union said it defends the rights of the PFOX group to display its message.
    "All speech deserves protection," said Stacey Mink, a spokeswoman for the ACLU's Maryland chapter.
    Mr. Cohen has been married for 22 years and has three children.
    "I help people who want to change their sexuality," he said. "Change is possible, and my three kids prove it. So does my happy wife."
    Melissa Coffey, a ministry associate at Regeneration Ministries, a Christian ministry that provides support to men and women "struggling with homosexuality," said the billboard's message is meant to provide hope.
    "You're always hearing the other side of the issue — that it's genetic, that's the way it is," she said. "If you're homosexual and you're happy, we're not gonna come knocking on your door. If you're homosexual and you're unhappy, you have choices. That's hopeful for people who don't have hope."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050202Va   House OKs 'Traditional Marriage' plates
 

By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

RICHMOND — The House yesterday approved a bill that would create a special "Traditional Marriage" license plate for Virginia motorists.
    Delegates voted 62-35 in support of the bill and sent it to the Senate for consideration.
    During a debate on the measure yesterday, a Republican and a Democrat spoke against the bill, arguing that the special license plate makes a mockery of marriage.
    Delegate R. Lee Ware said instead of license plates, lawmakers should focus their attention on a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
    "Because it is a matter of gravity, a matter of this kind of gravity, I think we trivialize it to reduce it to a commuter plate," the Powhatan Republican said. "I am looking forward to a serious debate of a serious social matter."
    Delegate Robert H. Brink said the marriage plate bordered on "uncharted territory in license plate land" and does a "grave disservice" to marriage.
    "Putting marriage in the same class as license plates for Holstein cows, Parrotheads and Harley-Davidson owners ... cheapens and trivializes marriage," the Arlington Democrat said. "Using marriage as a political football is just wrong and that's what we're doing today."
    Mr. Brink also said many lawmakers might feel pressured to vote in support of the bill so they aren't labeled by their opponents as "anti-marriage" in the November election.
    "Down my way, you're dead in the water if you vote against it," Delegate Jackie T. Stump, of Buchanan County, said during a House Democratic caucus meeting this week.
    Delegate L. Scott Lingamfelter, Prince William County Republican who authored the bill, encouraged delegates to vote for it. "Send a message to the commonwealth that you're not ashamed of traditional marriage," he said.
    Some Democrats have said they believe the bill is unconstitutional.
    The license plate would feature two interlocked golden wedding bands over a red heart and would bear the phrase "Traditional Marriage" in capital letters. Proceeds from the sale of the plates would go to the state's general fund.

    The House yesterday tentatively approved legislation allowing localities to license abortion clinics.
    Without debate, the House also voted 69-28 to pass a bill requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgery centers. That bill now goes to the Senate, where similar measures have died in committee two years in a row.
    The bill authorizing local governments to adopt ordinances requiring licensing of abortion clinics advanced on an unrecorded voice vote. A final House vote is set for today.
    Both bills apply to clinics that perform at least 25 first-trimester abortions annually.

    Several college presidents yesterday urged a Senate committee to approve legislation giving all of Virginia's public universities greater control over their finances and operations.
    The 82-page measure — a combination of two previously filed bills — was distributed to the Education and Health Committee a few minutes after the hearing started. Chairman Russell H. Potts Jr., Winchester Republican, told members he expected them to read the bill overnight and be prepared to vote at a special meeting today.
    The legislation grew out of a proposal by the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech and the College of William and Mary to give up some state funding in exchange for more control over tuition, building projects, procurement and other matters.
    Legislators balked at extending the additional flexibility to just three schools in the "chartered universities" proposal.
    Sen. Thomas K. Norment Jr., James City Republican who co-sponsored the bill, said the measure offers more autonomy to all public universities while maintaining appropriate state oversight and accountability.
    The legislation establishes three levels of autonomy, with universities enacting six-year plans intended to promote stability and predictability in tuition, enrollment growth and other matters.
    All universities would be eligible for the first level of autonomy. Those seeking additional flexibility at the second level would operate under a "memorandum of understanding" while those at the top level would operate under a management agreement signed by legislative leaders and various administration officials.
    Alan G. Merten, president of George Mason University in Fairfax, said the measure "will make us more effective and more efficient."
    The presidents of Virginia Tech, the College of William and Mary and the University of Virginia also endorsed the bill, as did the chancellor of the Virginia Community College System and the executive director of the State Council of Higher Education in Virginia.

    Virginia's religious leaders yesterday spoke out against a bill that affects how property is divvied up when congregations choose to secede from a church or diocese.
    Senate Bill 1305 would give congregations that break away from their denomination leverage to retain control of church property.
    Critics of the bill contend it was drafted in response to the 2003 consecration of the first openly homosexual Episcopal bishop. Bishop V. Gene Robinson's consecration angered many Episcopalians, who also protested the church's decision to allow blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.
    In the Episcopal Church, all church property is held in trust by the diocese and the Episcopal Church. Currently, if a church decides to withdraw from the diocese and the Episcopal Church, the church property remains with the diocese. The bill, sponsored by Sen. William C. Mims, Leesburg Republican, would give congregations that leave the church the power to vote to keep the property.
    The bill also would allow seceding congregations to be independent of any church, diocese or society. Currently, congregations that break away are limited to joining another branch of the church or society.
    • This article is based in part on wire service reports.
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050201L  Terri
Your editorial "Lessons learned?" poses a chilling question: How are we to keep from having the Holocaust happen again? Well, it is apparent from the statistics that the underlying problem is education, both in Europe and here in the United States.
    The refusal of educational leaders to focus on history, both European and American, is appalling. What we used to call "civics" classes do not exist anymore. Children are no longer taught the history of their own countries. How few of our children can name the 13 original Colonies? Recite the preamble to the Constitution?Or the Declaration of Independence?
    In Europe, the same reluctance to teach history exists. More children know the names of the Beatles than they do the names of their own representatives. A history of Germany's horrible time of Nazism and the existence of the death camps should be taught as a primary subject.
     How in the world are children to know these things took place if we don't tell them? Soon, those teachers who were alive when it happened, or even are children of those people, will be gone. Who will carry on the message? We must not let it die along with the 6 million Jews.
    "Never again" will translate into "Never what again?"

    JACK DORWIN
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050201C   Reinventing Hillary Clinton
 

By Suzanne Fields
 
 

    Hillary Clinton changes images with the quickness of Madonna. Like the Queen of Pop, she provokes and reacts, rethinks and reforms, pushes at hot buttons and then cools off with a dip in the mainstream.
    Madonna moved from "Like a Virgin" to "Married With Children," and began writing children's books. Hillary went from high-octane lawyer in Little Rock who didn't want to stay home to bake cookies to being a first lady sharing her recipe for chocolate chip cookies. She moved from standing by her man in a way that Tammy Wynette might have sung about to standing up for New York in the United States Senate.
    Both Madonna and Hillary have made a lot of stops that women understand. Madonna, who was born Catholic, now seeks meaning in the Jewish mysticism of the Kabala, and has even taken a Jewish name, Esther. Hillary never abandoned the Methodist social gospel, and now she's making noises that fall lightly on the ears of the evangelical swing voters who were turned off by John Kerry's tinny attempt to talk about "values."
    Madonna continues to surprise us, but Hillary's reinventions shouldn't surprise us at all. She's on a trip, guided by the road map first used by her husband. She's working at looking "moderate," and learning to feel the pain of others.
    When she spoke to the Family Planning Advocates of New York last week, she actually expressed empathy — if not necessarily sympathy — with the fiercest opponents of abortion. "I, for one, respect those who believe with all their heart and conscience that there are no circumstances under which abortion should be available," she said. This from one of the fiercest defenders of uncompromising feminist voices in the cause of abortion rights; she voted against the ban of partial-birth abortion.
    She said "common ground" was the best way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. She described abortion as a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women." Hillary is nothing if not calculating and she chose her audience carefully. She was talking not to a pro-life group, but in a lioness's den of abortion rights advocates on the 32nd anniversary of the Supreme Court decision declaring abortion a constitutional right. Her rhetoric has been characterized as a Sister Souljah moment like that of her husband to the Rainbow Coalition in 1992, rebuking the black rap singer for her hymns to hate. It worked for Bill, and the gasps in the audience, as if those present had witnessed their angel's dainty feet exposed as works of clay, suggest it might work for Hillary.
    She expects her base to submit, even if grudgingly, just as the blacks of the Rainbow Coalition submitted to her husband. She knows that feminists have hurt their cause by stubbornly refusing to give any credibility to moral and religious arguments against abortion. Some feminists inevitably see her remarks as a flip-flop, but Hillary is no John Kerry. She was merely changing emphasis, and she's likely to extend the "common ground" theme to good effect.
    Even more fascinating was her support of faith-based initiatives. This may have been easier, since it no doubt appeals to the do-good religious faith of her early years. She told a fundraiser in Boston that religious men and women ought to be able to deliver social services, a bold departure from fellow Democrats who have given the president a hard time on this initiative. America is big enough for people to "live out their faith in the public square," she said. "I've always been a praying person." (We should expect the second President Clinton to seek "a relationship with the Lord," too.)
    Hillary has been looking at more than exit polls. In her new book, "God on the Quad," Naomi Schaefer Riley describes the increasing numbers of graduates of religious colleges — Mormon, fundamentalist and evangelical Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Jewish — whose religious faith governs their search for values. They're very different from their parents. They're savvy, secure, have high academic standards and are difficult to ridicule.
    "Unlike their parents, religious college graduates see themselves less as a force outside of American culture trying to fight it, than a force within trying to transform it," she writes. "This is the psychological result of spending four years in an environment that supported rather than attacked their religious beliefs and asked them to make the intellectual connections between faith and politics, culture, philosophy and literature." They're going into professions and many of them will move into the blue states. These young men and women won't buy into Madonna's reincarnations, but they're likely to listen closely to Hillary on moral values. Democrats would be foolish to ignore them. Hillary Clinton clearly doesn't intend to.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050131E   Abortion fandango
 

By Terry Eastland

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has given a speech on abortion that is befuddling the political class. Did she, in her speech last Monday to abortion-rights supporters, say what she has always said on abortion, or something new?
    Mrs. Clinton affirmed her longstanding support for abortion rights, declared in Roe vs. Wade. But "then she quickly shifted gears," the New York Times said in a Page One article, "offering warm words to opponents of legalized abortion and praising the influence of 'religious and moral values' on delaying teenage girls from becoming sexually active."
    A day later a Clinton aide told reporters the senator had said nothing new and that the speech didn't merit A-1 coverage. So The Times was wrong to see the speech as an effort to reach out "beyond traditional core Democrats who support abortion rights" — or was it?
    This much is clear: It would have been Page One news everywhere if Mrs. Clinton had said it is time for her party to quit defending Roe vs. Wade.
    That would have been heresy to "traditional core Democrats," of course, but the truth is that its fierce attachment to Roe is a big reason for the Democratic Party's gradual decline.
    In Roe, another anniversary of which passed last week — with the usual arguments, rallies and meetings, including the one Mrs. Clinton attended — the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to abortion so sweeping it may be exercised for any reason up to the point of viability and even after that to preserve a woman's health.
    Roe nullified state abortion laws everywhere. Yet Roe was vulnerable on many grounds, not least that it lacked rooting in the text and history of the Constitution.
    As abortion-rights supporter Benjamin Wittes writes in the current Atlantic Monthly, Roe had "a deep legitimacy problem." But soon the Democratic Party swore allegiance to just such a decision. That meant as well a commitment to its disenfranchising effects, since Roe mandated policy.
    The party came to shut down dissent (Robert Casey, pro-life Pennsylvania governor, was barred from addressing the 1992 Democratic National Convention) even as it advanced ever more strident Roe defenses (no "warm words" for pro-lifers).
    In the last Senate, Democrats routinely resorted to filibusters to block judicial nominees they regarded as opposed to Roe. And in John Kerry the party offered a presidential candidate who refused to talk about abortion in terms other than the narrowly legal ones of Roe, and who vowed to name only judges who would support Roe.
    Now, in the wake of an election in which the Democrats lost badly, Democrats for Life aren't the only Democrats who understand that the party's position on Roe helps explain the party's ebbing fortune since the 1970s, when it still held large majorities in both houses. Consider that in 1977-78, 125 of 292 House Democrats were pro-life, while in the last Congress only 28 of 205 House Democrats were. "There are a number of districts," says Kristen Day, the group's executive director, "that could be won by a pro-life Democrat" but are held by Republicans "because of the pro-life issue."
    As reported by Newsweek, John Kerry now echoes Kristen Day: "We have to find a different way to deal with the issue of abortion. ... We have to find a way to bring ... right-to-life Democrats back to the Democratic Party."
    The best way would be for the party to quit defending Roe vs. Wade, quit saying the sky would fall if Roe were overruled, and quit making fidelity to Roe a litmus test for judges or positions of party leadership. And to welcome democratic debate in which "the deeply held differences of opinion" on abortion acknowledged in Mrs. Clinton's speech could finally be aired in ways that matter.
    Imagine if Mrs. Clinton, while observing she favors abortion rights in such a debate, would say that. Imagine if John Kerry or Howard Dean or any other nationally prominent Democrat would say that. It would be big news, for sure.

    Terry Eastland is publisher of the Weekly Standard.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050131E    Not so inclusive
    Former Rep. Timothy J. Roemer, an opponent of abortion, showed up in New York over the weekend to try to sell Democratic National Committee members on his candidacy for party chairman.
    "I don't think this party has ever litmus-tested a candidate," he said. "We're not the intolerant party. We're the inclusive party. We're the party that doesn't let Karl Rove define our stand on choice. But we shouldn't also let a special-interest group define our stand on choice."
    The New York Times, citing Mr. Roemer's words, reports that the Indiana Democrat "heatedly tried to counter growing resistance to his candidacy because of his opposition to abortion rights and was rewarded with hisses from the crowd for his effort."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050131   Pro-Bush forces gear up for Supreme struggle
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Supporters of President Bush's judicial nominees have hired the same media firm used by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for their efforts to defend the next nominee for any upcoming Supreme Court vacancy.
    The aggressive media style of Creative Response Concepts (CRC) will be met by a "war room" already set up by the liberal People For the American Way (PFAW) on the other side, indicating that the next Supreme Court fight is likely to be one of the nastiest in history.
    "There is nothing more important — if and when it happens — than a Supreme Court nomination," said PFAW President Ralph G. Neas, standing in the 2,500-square-foot room of the organization's M Street building.
    The room is equipped with telephones, desks and 36 computers — enough for the 75 paid staff members and 50 volunteers he expects to run it.
    Mr. Neas declined to say how much money his group is spending on the command center, except to say it's "the major institutional commitment this year."
    "Ralph Neas has been waiting for this battle since his last Supreme Court battle years ago," said Greg Mueller, president of CRC. "We don't even have a vacancy or a nominee and these left-wing organizations are already organizing war rooms."
    CRC made a splash in the summer promoting the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that questioned the legitimacy of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry's war medals, his claims about his Vietnam War service, and his anti-war stance upon returning to the United States.
    The group has been hired into the judicial battle by the Federalist Society, the influential conservative judicial organization from which many of Mr. Bush's nominees have been picked.
    "This doesn't surprise me," Mr. Neas said of the Federalist Society's hiring of CRC. "It just proves the point I've been making for years: It's a right-wing organization that is very political and very partisan."
    Mr. Mueller said the Federalist Society's role in the nomination fight will be to "educate people" about the possible nominees. To that end, the society has created a list of legal analysts to talk to reporters.
    "All the people on the list are seasoned legal minds," he said. Many on the list, Mr. Mueller said, are former clerks to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas — all conservatives after whom Mr. Bush has said he will model any Supreme Court nominees.
    The Federalist Society also will write executive summaries of the nominees.
    "They are purely educational, not only for the press, but also for the organizations out there that want to learn more," Mr. Mueller said.
    On Capitol Hill, both Democrats and Republicans have begun mobilizing for any vacancy with extensive meetings and planning sessions with outside groups.
    Most speculation centers on Chief Justice Rehnquist, 80, who was diagnosed with thyroid cancer last year and has been working from home during his aggressive treatment. Also being watched is Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 74, who has reportedly confided some interest in retiring.
    Justice John Paul Stevens, 84, one of the court's most liberal members, is being watched as well.
    Democrats say privately that one reason they have no plans to filibuster Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales is that they want to reserve enough political capital to lodge one against a Supreme Court nominee.
    "If [the next nominee] is someone in the mode of Thomas or Scalia, we'll oppose that nominee," said Mr. Neas, echoing the sentiments of many Democrats on the Hill. "And I think they'll be defeated."
    Mr. Mueller said PFAW's tactic in the past has been to "run character-assassination campaigns" against Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. "We expect they will try that again."
    "Unless the president is going to nominate Ted Kennedy or some ACLU lawyer, Ralph Neas is not going to be happy," he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050201   Spellings to 'stay the course' in education
 

By George Archibald
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Margaret Spellings was sworn in yesterday as secretary of education, becoming the first mother with school-age children to hold the Cabinet post since its creation 25 years ago.
    Mrs. Spellings pledged during the ceremony in the U.S. Education Department auditorium to "stay the course" to improve learning and continue closing "the pernicious achievement gap" between white and minority children. President Bush, first lady Laura Bush and members of Mrs. Spellings' family were in attendance.
    "At the same time, we must work to close another gap, the skills gap, faced by our high-school graduates. We must introduce the reforms of No Child Left Behind to our high schools so that diplomas become tickets to success in the 21st century," said the 47-year-old former chief White House domestic-policy adviser.
    Mr. Bush, whose visit to the department was the first in his presidency, also emphasized: "There is still more work to be done ... . We will maintain the high standards of No Child Left Behind. We will extend those high standards and accountability to America's public high schools."
    The president's plan calls for spending an additional $1.5 billion a year for remedial reading programs for ninth-graders and required reading and mathematics tests in ninth, 10th, and 11th grades.
    "Today, only about 60 out of every 100 students entering our public high schools ever make it to graduation four years later," Mr. Bush said. "Margaret understands, as I do, that is unacceptable. We're committed to ensuring that every high-school student succeeds and leaves with the skills he or she needs to succeed in college or the workplace."
    Mrs. Spelling praised teachers, principals and school administrators across the country for raising reading and math achievement of elementary- and middle-school students, particularly among disadvantaged and minority children.
    "Mr. President, your passion for education has become our policy. Your belief that every child can learn has become our mission," she said.
    "When you signed No Child Left Behind into law three years ago, it was more than an act, it was an attitude that says it's right to measure our children's progress from year to year so we can help them before it's too late; an attitude that says expecting students to read and do math at grade level or better is not too much to ask.
    "We've learned a new equation — accountability plus high expectations plus resources equals results," she said. "We must stay the course."
    Underscoring a bipartisan commitment to further educational improvement, congressional leaders from both parties attended the swearing in, with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts representing Democrats.
    Six other members of Mr. Bush's administration, including Office of Management and Budget Director Josh Bolten and White House political director Karl Rove, also attended the ceremony.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050201    Students fail 1st Amendment
 

By Marion Baillot
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

American high school students lack knowledge and understanding of the First Amendment, a study released yesterday suggests.
    More than a third of the nation's high school students say the amendment — guaranteeing citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and the right to petition the government — goes too far in the rights it guarantees.
    Hodding Carter, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the survey, said "these results are not only disturbing, they are dangerous."
    "Ignorance about the basis of this free society is a danger to our nation's future," he added.
    The survey of 112,003 students found that half said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without governmental approval of stories. Thirty-two percent of the students interviewed said the press has too much freedom. Furthermore, 17 percent said people should not be allowed to express unpopular opinions.
    Half of the students wrongly thought that the government can censor the Internet.
    The survey also showed a wide indifference to basic freedoms, with nearly three-fourths of high school students either not knowing how they feel about the First Amendment or acknowledging that they take it for granted.
    Mike Maidenberg, vice president of the foundation, did find a "hopeful message" in the survey: It suggests that First Amendment values can be taught. The more the students take classes with journalism and First Amendment content, the greater their understanding and embrace of the amendment's rights.
    The survey also questioned nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators and principals in April and May last year.
    An overwhelming majority of administrators said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but cited a lack of financial resources as the main obstacle. Of the high schools that do not have student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them within the past five years.
    "The last 15 years have not been a golden era for student media," said Warren Watson, director of the J-Ideas Project at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., an organization aimed at developing high school journalism. "Programs are under siege or dying from neglect. Many students do not get the opportunity to practice our basic freedoms."
    Mr. Maidenberg called the survey a "wake-up call."
    "If there is not a future to the First Amendment, then this is a very different kind of country," he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050103   Leading by example
    When a political panel discussion in Washington this week turned to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's drifting to the center of the polity — including her recent praise of the Clinton administration for helping lower the number of abortions performed in this country — former Ambassador Richard Carlson, who was seated in the audience, couldn't help but recall a joke he'd heard that morning.
    It had to do with Mrs. Clinton's recent fainting spell in Buffalo, N.Y., and ... well, what might have been behind it (come to think of it, the former first lady wouldn't be the oldest woman on the planet to carry a baby full term).
    As one might expect, ladies in the audience were visibly aghast at the mere thought, while the few men in attendance who weren't laughing offered a polite smile.
    Suffice it to say, Mr. Carlson, former president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, got the panel's undivided attention.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050202   WISCONSIN   Boy, 12, charged with sexual assault
    MILWAUKEE — A 12-year-old boy has been charged with sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl in a Milwaukee YMCA.
    A delinquency petition filed Monday in Milwaukee County Children's Court said a manager saw the assault on security monitor on Saturday afternoon.
    The manager ran to the weight room and saw the boy pulling up his shorts, the petition said.
    The girl said the boy hit her, pushed her down, kicked her, pulled at her pants and choked her with her scarf, according to the petition.
    If found delinquent, the boy could be sent to a juvenile institution for up to two years, and the orders could be renewed until he turns 18.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050202   Influential evangelicals
    Since the November election, evangelical Christians have seen their political status soar.
    Not only did a "Christian Inaugural Eve Gala" at the Ritz-Carlton attract the likes of White House adviser Karl Rove, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, Attorney General John Ashcroft, White House public liaison Tim Goeglein and former Rep. J.C. Watts, Oklahoma Republican, among others, but now Time magazine has come out with its (apparently first) list of "25 most influential evangelicals in America."
    Its top choice, the Rev. Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., was hardly a surprise, considering how the sales of the megachurch leader's "The Purpose-Driven Life" have topped 20 million. More interesting was its third-place choice of David Barton, founder of Wallbuilders and former Texas Republican Party chairman as well as the RNC's liaison to social conservatives during the recent election. In fourth place was Doug Coe, founder and host of tomorrow's National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton, which is heavily attended by members of Congress from both parties.
    Other political picks: former Nixon adviser Chuck Colson (fifth place), Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, White House speechwriter Michael Gerson (ninth place) and Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican (22nd place), who is actually a Roman Catholic, not an evangelical. Fellow Catholic the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus (19th place) also made the list, which shows that Time's definition of "evangelical" is pretty broad indeed.
    Time is not the only publication to draw up such a list. The Church Report, a Phoenix-based publication, recently came out with a "50 most influential Christians in America" list. Its top pick? President Bush.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050202   Feldt vs. Kerry
    The outgoing president of Planned Parenthood, Gloria Feldt, criticized Sen. John Kerry yesterday for an ineffective defense of abortion rights during his losing presidential campaign.
    "I have great respect for John Kerry, but there's no question he did not articulate these issues well," Mrs. Feldt said in an interview with the Associated Press. "He seemed equivocal. He ceded the moral high ground to the other side."
    Mrs. Feldt, 62, resigned last week — effective immediately — after eight years as president of the country's most influential and controversial family-planning organization.
    Mrs. Feldt had been conferring with her board of directors for several months about stepping down and described the departure as amicable — with some differences over timing, but not over strategies.
    Mrs. Feldt now plans to write, travel and enjoy new freedom as a speaker. She cited her comments about Mr. Kerry as something she would not have dared say in her former post.
    "It's not our fault that the pro-choice candidate didn't win," Mrs. Feldt said, contending many voters were unsure where the Democratic candidate stood on abortion-related issues.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050202   God's back
    It's difficult if not impossible in these secular days to lead the nation's public school students in prayer, but being the nation's top principal has its advantages.
    "This was no wimpy pro-forma prayer," said one of 300 guests who crowded into the Education Department auditorium for this week's swearing-in of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.
    "It definitely said 'take a hike' to the ACLU, People for the American Way, atheist Michael Newhouse and all secular humanist activists who want to push religious faith totally out of any activities involving government and public education."
    Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, offered the resounding prayer in the presence of President Bush and first lady Laura Bush, six Cabinet members, White House aides Karl Rove and Andrew H. Card Jr., Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and several other members of Congress.
    "Let us bow our heads as we acknowledge God's holy presence," began Mr. Towey, going on to pray that the heavenly Father "guide and inspire [Mrs. Spellings] in these important duties."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050202   Group says MTV sells sex to youths
 

By Marion Baillot
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A conservative media watchdog yesterday issued a report accusing MTV of blatantly selling sex to children, coinciding with the anniversary of singer Janet Jackson's breast exposure during the MTV-produced 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.
    In a report titled "MTV Smut Peddlers: Targeting Kids With Sex, Drugs and Alcohol," the Parents Television Council (PTC) said the Viacom-owned cable channel contains staggering levels of sex, violence and foul language.
    Pointing out that people are still talking about the Jackson incident, which was "three-quarters of a second on broadcast television," L. Brent Bozell, president of the PTC, said: "One possible explanation is that in that moment, millions of parents finally saw, and understood what their children are seeing every afternoon on MTV."
    The report is based on an analysis of 171 hours of MTV's "Spring Break" programming during the week of March 20-27, 2004.
    PTC analysts concluded children watching MTV are viewing an average of nine sexual scenes per hour and subjected to roughly nine unbleeped profanities, in addition to 18 bleeped profanities per hour.
    They also said music video programming contained nine violence instances and 32 foul language instances per hour. And reality shows reportedly had more sexual content than the music videos, with 13 sexual scenes per hour.
    According to the Parents Television Council, MTV contains far higher levels of sex and foul language compared with prime-time broadcast television, and almost three times the adult content that adults get late at night — yet MTV's shows are aimed at children as young as 12.
    An MTV spokeswoman said the report "underestimates young people's level of sophistication and intellect."
    "It is ridiculous," she added, referring to an experiment cited by the report according to which "seventh- and ninth-graders [are] more likely to approve premarital sex after watching MTV for just one hour."
    She also called the report "very dated and taken out of context," because it bases some of its conclusions on studies conducted in 1986 and 1993.
    Still, Mr. Bozell said "parents need to be worried about MTV not only because of its popularity, but also because of its tremendous influence in the lives of America's teens and preteens."
    According to the report, MTV is watched by 73 percent of boys and 78 percent of girls between the ages of 12 and 19.
    "This reports ignores a lot of what MTV truly stands for," said the MTV spokeswoman, citing the Peabody and Emmy Award-winning "Choose or Lose" political awareness and voter registration campaign.
    However, according to the report, "the incessant sleaze on MTV presents the most compelling case yet for consumer cable choice." MTV is generally part of any basic cable package.
    "It is unconscionable for the cable industry to force families to subsidize this kind of filth for the privilege of being able to watch TV Land, or the Food Network, or Disney Channel," Mr. Bozell said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050202   Utah Senate rejects attempt to soften gay 'marriage' ban

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — After amending the state constitution last year to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, Utah legislators are in no hurry to limit the effects that the homosexual "marriage" law could have on other kinds of domestic partnerships.
    The Senate overwhelmingly voted yesterday to kill a bill that would have eased restrictions imposed by the homosexual "marriage" measure. The legislation had come under fire from conservative lobby groups in this heavily Republican state.
    The homosexual "marriage" amendment was criticized because it was seen as a way to deny hospital visitation or survivor's property rights to children being brought up by grandparents or to senior citizens who live together but do not marry for financial reasons. Siblings living in the same household also could find themselves without customary rights.
    Utah's Legislature ignored warnings from the state's Republican attorney general that the amendment went further than needed to ban homosexual "marriage." State voters ratified it with 66 percent approval in November.
    But some of the same lawmakers had been looking at giving back to adults who live together but are ineligible to marry — a category that includes same-sex couples — some of the rights of husband and wife.
    "It addresses the need of persons who may have some relationship other than marriage to delegate responsibilities to each other," said state Sen. Greg Bell, a Republican.
    The Senate rejected Mr. Bell's bill on an 18-10 vote, after Republican lawmakers huddled over lunch with two marriage-law experts who argued that there was nothing wrong with Utah's constitutional measure against same-sex "marriage."
    Mr. Bell was quick to deny that it has anything to do with homosexual "marriage."
    The measure would have created a state domestic-partner registry that would allow unmarried couples — both same-sex and opposite-sex — to have reciprocal property and health care rights and to bury one another.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050203   Kansas sets April vote on marriage
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Kansas House of Representatives yesterday approved a constitutional amendment that defines marriage only as the union of one man and one woman, and outlaws civil unions.
    The amendment, which cleared the state Senate last month, goes before Kansas voters April 5.
    If it passes, Kansas would become the 18th state with a constitutional marriage amendment.
    Supporters of traditional values were pleased by the vote.
    "What a great victory for traditional values," said Tamara Cooper, executive director of the Kansas Republican Assembly, on the group's Web site after Kansas House members approved the amendment 86-37.
    Kansas state Rep. Bill McCreary said yesterday he expects it to pass "by an overwhelming margin."
    "This is a very conservative state, and I think they deserve the right to vote on this issue," he said.
    In Idaho, however, it was homosexual-rights supporters who were celebrating yesterday after the state Senate voted down its marriage amendment, 21-14, a few votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed.
    "We're very excited by these results ... we, of course, have been fighting this," said Jim Smith, co-chairman of Your Family, Friends and Neighbors, a homosexual-rights advocacy group.
    The Idaho Senate vote essentially kills the marriage issue for this session, as Idaho House leaders said they wanted any such amendment to first pass the Senate.
    The nation has been struggling with the issue of same-sex "marriage" since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that its state constitution allows such unions. That landmark "Goodridge" decision led to the first U.S. state-sanctioned homosexual "marriages" as of May 17.
    State marriage amendments are intended to prevent courts from finding a right to "marry" same-sex couples in their respective state constitutions. Last year, residents of 13 states — Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah — voted to change their constitutions to recognize only marriages between one man and one woman.
    Four other states — Hawaii, Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada — passed marriage amendments in previous years.
    Homosexual rights and civil liberties groups have filed legal challenges against amendments in Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and as of this week, Oregon.
    A legal challenge to Louisiana's marriage amendment ended last month when it was upheld as constitutional by the Louisiana Supreme Court.
    Meanwhile:
    • Lawmakers in at least six states — Alabama, Iowa, Indiana, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia — are considering constitutional marriage amendments this session. If lawmakers pass these amendments, they will be put to a public vote, most likely in 2006.
    • Lawmakers in three more states — Massachusetts, Tennessee and Wisconsin — have given preliminary approval to marriage constitutional amendments, but must pass the amendments a second time before they can go to voters.
    • Lawmakers in New Jersey and New Mexico have introduced bills to define marriage as the union of a man and woman in state law.
 vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O040203   'A better deal'
    Here is why personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver — and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away. ...
    Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.
    Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by activist judges. For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
    Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life. ... I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity. ...
    Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. As president, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well-qualified to serve on the bench — and I have done so. The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote. ...
    Our third responsibility to future generations is to leave them an America that is safe from danger, and protected by peace. We will pass along to our children all the freedoms we enjoy — and chief among them is freedom from fear.
    In the 3½ years since September 11, 2001, we have taken unprecedented actions to protect Americans. ...
    Our nation, working with allies and friends, has also confronted the enemy abroad, with measures that are determined, successful, and continuing. The al Qaeda terror network that attacked our country still has leaders — but many of its top commanders have been removed. There are still governments that sponsor and harbor terrorists — but their number has declined. There are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction — but no longer without attention and without consequence.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050205   Manhattan judge says gays have right to 'marry'
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A Manhattan judge has found a constitutional right to "marry" for homosexual couples, in stark contrast to three upstate judges who found no such right.
    The conflicting decisions virtually guarantee that the issue will reach the state's highest court, although as of late yesterday, attorneys for the city declined to talk about their next step.
    Homosexual rights advocates were elated by the ruling of New York State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, who was elected to the bench in 2002.
    "It was only less than 40 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court held that anti-miscegenation statutes, adopted to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classification, violate the Constitution because they infringed on the freedom to marry a person of one's choice," Judge Ling-Cohan wrote of the lawsuit filed by Daniel Hernandez and his partner, Nevin Cohen, and four other homosexual couples who were denied marriage licenses by the city.
    "Similarly, this court must so hold in the context of same-sex marriages," she wrote, ordering the city to stop denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples — but staying her order for 30 days.
    Michael A. Cardozo, corporation counsel in the New York City Law Department, said, "We are reviewing the decision thoroughly and considering our options."
    Lambda Legal attorney Susan Sommer, who represented the plaintiffs, hailed the ruling as "historic."
    "Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do," she said.
    "We are disappointed in today's decision," said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver, whose Orlando, Fla., legal group is active in many homosexual rights "marriage" lawsuits.
    "Three other Supreme Court judges in New York have independently reviewed the laws and concluded, as they should, that the marriage laws are constitutional," he said, referring to a case involving 13 same-sex couples in Albany, N.Y.; another one involving 10 couples in Rockland County; and a decision issued Feb. 3, which reinstated 24 misdemeanor counts against New Paltz, N.Y., Mayor Jason West for "marrying" same-sex couples last year.
    On Capitol Hill, Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and supporter of a federal marriage amendment, said the ruling was "a vivid reminder that opponents of traditional marriage have not given up their effort to overturn the will of the people."
    The New York cases are among several "freedom to marry" cases now in the courts. Lower court judges have ruled for homosexual plaintiffs in Washington state and against them in Indiana and New Jersey. Rulings have yet to be issued in cases in California, Connecticut and Maryland.
    Same-sex "marriage" currently is legal only in Massachusetts.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050205    Man gets 50 years in rape of infant
 
    HOUSTON - Keith Samuel Cook was sentenced to 50 years in prison for raping a 6-week-old girl last February.
    The girl's mother, Eugenia White, 28, was not in court as the three-day trial ended. She testified earlier this week that she had been dating Cook, 35, for about six months when the assault occurred, and initially lied about it to doctors and detectives, the Houston Chronicle reported.
    Miss White originally said she had "scratched" her daughter while changing a diaper. She is charged with failure to report child abuse, punishable by up to one year in jail.
    She told jurors that she had been taking a bath at her apartment Feb. 20 when Cook told her he had scratched the baby while changing a diaper.
    The girl is in the custody of a relative.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050204   'U.S. should be open to God's priorities'
 

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush yesterday said that affirming God's supremacy "is particularly appropriate in the heart of a capital built upon the promise of self-government" and called for "opening ourselves to God's priorities" at the National Prayer Breakfast.
    "Prayer has always been one of the great equalizers in American life," he told thousands of faithful at the Washington Hilton & Towers. "Through fellowship and prayer, we acknowledge that all power is temporary and must ultimately answer to His purposes."
    Mr. Bush, who regards Abraham Lincoln as America's greatest president, cited the 16th president's reference to God after he was elected to a second term in November 1864.
    "Lincoln declared he would be 'the most shallow and self-conceited blockhead on earth' if he ever thought he could do his job without the wisdom which comes from God and not from men," Mr. Bush said.
    The reference recalled the president's own words during an interview with The Washington Times last month.
    "I don't see how you can be president, at least from my perspective, how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord," he told editors and reporters of The Times in the Oval Office.
    Mr. Bush addressed a multidenominational, bipartisan, early morning gathering that included Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, who tried to suppress numerous yawns. Like many in the crowd, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, Mr. Kerry had been up late the night before to attend the president's State of the Union address on Capitol Hill.
    "Last night was a prayerful occasion — I noticed a lot of members were praying that I would keep my speech short," Mr. Bush joked. "Thank you for getting up so early in the morning — you resisted temptation to sleep in."
    Turning serious, the president emphasized the common values of different religious faiths.
    "We thank God for his great blessings in one voice, regardless of our backgrounds," he said. "We recognize in one another the spark of the Divine that gives all human beings their inherent dignity and worth, regardless of religion."
    Yesterday, Mr. Bush said he has witnessed "miracles" made possible by the power of prayer. He recalled meeting Veronica Braewell, a 20-year-old refugee from Liberia, in June.
    "As a 13-year-old child, Veronica witnessed armed men killing children in horrific ways," he said. "As she fled this madness, Veronica was left for dead atop a pile of bodies, until her grandmother found her."
    She was brought to Pennsylvania, where a Catholic charity found her a home and a job in a nursing home. She is studying to become a nursing assistant.
    "When Veronica told me of her story, it was through the kind of tears no young woman should ever know," Mr. Bush said. "And when she finished, she dried her eyes and said, 'Thank you, Mr. President, for my freedom.'
    "I told her it wasn't me she needed to thank; she needed to thank the good hearts of the United States of America. The America that embraced Veronica would not be possible without the prayer that drives and leads and sustains our armies of compassion."
    Mr. Bush also said people of faith need to pray to find the compassion necessary to fulfill their beliefs.
    "For prayer means more than presenting God with our plans and desires; prayer also means opening ourselves to God's priorities, especially by hearing the cry of the poor and the less fortunate," Mr. Bush said.
    "When the tsunamis hit those on the far side of the world, the American government rightly responded. But the American response is so much more than what our government agencies did."
    Mr. Bush was preceded to the lectern by Tony P. Hall, chief of the U.S. mission to the United Nations Agencies in Rome.
    "We don't pray enough for leaders," said Mr. Hall, a former Democratic congressman from Ohio. "I know that today we're going to pray for the president — all the people that are here — but what are we going to do tomorrow? We need to pray for our president every day."
    Evangelist Billy Graham sent a letter of support.
    "I very much regret that my strength will not allow me to return to Washington for the breakfast this year, as I have done so many times in the past," he wrote. "Our world has many serious problems, some of them critical. We are in great need of a spiritual awakening."
    The 53rd annual breakfast was sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation, an Arlington-based ministry that, among other ventures, organizes monthly breakfasts for members of Congress. Its founder, Douglas Coe, 76, was named one of America's 25 most influential evangelicals by Time magazine this week.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050204   Americans used faith factor in choosing their president
 

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Voter faith — or the lack of it — made a strong imprint in the 2004 presidential election, according to a survey released yesterday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
    Non-believers, in fact, were among Sen. John Kerry's most loyal groups, with 82 percent of those identifying themselves as atheists or agnostics in support of the Massachusetts Democrat. They barely were outranked in the poll by black Protestants, 83 percent of whom supported Mr. Kerry.
    "Modernist" mainline Protestants — those who claimed to be "liberal or progressive" in their views, according to the poll — ranked third at 78 percent, followed by other faiths, including Muslims, Hindus and New Age practitioners (77 percent) and Jews (73 percent).
    Traditionalist evangelical Protestants were President Bush's most ardent admirers, with 88 percent saying they supported him. According to the poll, the group included fundamentalists, Pentecostals, charismatics and other Protestants who preserve religious traditions and have strong beliefs in the Bible, existence of an afterlife, and other factors.
    "Other Christians" were Mr. Bush's next most powerful group of supporters (80 percent), followed by traditionalist Catholics with "traditional or conservative" views (72 percent), traditionalist mainline Protestants (68 percent), and "centrist" evangelical Protestants whose views fall midway between liberal and conservative (64 percent).
    Mr. Kerry, a practicing Catholic who annoyed some in his faith because he supports abortion, found moderate support among them. Only 28 percent of traditional Catholics backed Mr. Kerry, along with 45 percent of centrist Catholics. He drew 69 percent of the support from both modernist and Hispanic Catholics, however.
    "There was strong polarization not only between different religions, as was common in the past, but also within the major religious traditions — a relatively new phenomenon," said John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, which conducted the survey of 2,730 adults for Pew in November.
    Support among religious groups has shifted since the 2000 election, the poll says.
    Mr. Bush had a 31 percent gain among Hispanic Protestants, a 17 percent gain among traditional Catholics, and a 12 percent gain among both black Protestants and those of "other" Christian faiths. His support was down 12 percent with atheists/agnostics and modernist Catholics, and 10 percent among all mainline Protestants.
    Mr. Kerry, alternatively, gained 12 percent among both modernist Catholics and atheists/agnostics and 10 percent among all mainline Protestants. His support fell by 31 percent among Hispanic Protestants, 17 percent among traditional Catholics, 12 percent among both black Protestants and "other" Christians, and 11 percent among centrist Catholics.
    Overall, 47 percent of the respondents said faith was an important influence on their votes. Across the entire sampling, foreign policy was the most important issue, followed by the economy and social issues like abortion and same-sex "marriage".
    "However, a majority of the top four Bush constituencies regarded social issues as very important to their vote, exceeding the figure for the entire sample," the survey notes.
    The complete poll results can be seen at www.pewtrusts.com.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050204   Media panic
    "Like the onset of an infectious winter illness, reporters [Wednesday] night were coming down with a disturbing feeling," Tim Graham writes at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com).
    "Despite their best efforts last year to convince Americans to drop President Bush and mark the Iraq war in the history books as a colossal military and political blunder — and despite pre-State of the Union address clucking that Bush is at a 'historic low' in approval ratings — they can sense that the president is on a roll, that he's beginning to look bold, visionary, even 'Churchillian' (to quote David Gergen on PBS [Wednesday] night).
    "Successful elections in Iraq, which occurred despite months of cynical media speculation that it was foolish not to delay, feel to the media like a rejection of their relentless vision of a hopeless quagmire in the making. (Or as John Podhoretz put it Sunday, the elections were 'Ted Kennedy's Vietnam.') The touching human moment of Wednesday night's speech, when a fallen Marine's mother hugged an Iraqi woman who had voted, only cemented the momentum," said Mr. Graham, who is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center.
    "On ABC, usually dismissive Terry Moran gave away too much by calling it a 'shattering' moment, one that 'crystallizes' what the president has been trying to do. Cokie Roberts said it 'leaves you with goose bumps.' On CBS, Dan Rather said it was 'the most poignant moment of any State of the Union night we can remember.' Ted Koppel and his 'Nightline' panel universally concluded it was a 'grand slam.'
    "On MSNBC, Chris Matthews clumsily tried to conclude that this was a moment about growing the president's numbers on Social Security reform, which even media liberals like Newsweek's Jon Meacham dismissed as 'absurd.' Trying to suggest the grieving mother hugged the Iraqi voter at some focus group's urging makes you look like the world's most oafishly cynical pundit."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050204   Not much Jesus, but a lot of green
 

By Wesley Pruden
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The preachers in England have fallen on hard times since they pretty much turned Jesus out of the church, but the archbishop of Canterbury has come up with a novel idea to make himself relevant: If you can't get 'em to church, get 'em to the greenhouse.
    The churches of England — the churches of the Church of England — are going eco-friendly.
    Dr. Rowan Williams wants his vicars to serve only organic bread and wine for holy communion, to urge parishioners to ride to service in car pools, recycle "waste products," and to sell only "fair trade products" at church fairs and Bingo suppers. Anglicans should consider the ethics of the High Streets and shopping malls.
    If he can't save the world, the well-meaning archbishop has set out to save the planet, one weed at a time. He will outline his vision of a green world at a session of the General Synod of his church later this month. The gospel of global warning, not the Gospel of the Good News, is the challenge with which he wants his church to confront Britain and, naturally, the United States. Organic brussels sprouts, not organic accompaniment to the mighty hymns to the faith, should be the first order of Sunday worship in the stately empty pews of England.
    A "discussion document" has been distributed among the churches, and it deals with climate, not Christ, warning that the planet's climate is close to a tipping point. (Tipping points have suddenly become the vogue; only this week we heard our own pols speculate that the elections last Sunday were the tipping point in Iraq, whatever that may mean).
    "The sudden changes that would occur in weather systems, the fertility of the soil, the water and the world of living creatures if this 'tipping point' were reached," the archbishop's discussion document warns, "would be devastating." Growth without limit "has to be curtailed." The archbishop is an authority on no-growth; if it works for him, why not the world?
    The greening of what remains of the British state church is part of a fresh effort to shame America into stunting the nation's growth on behalf of the lazy buggers of the world, mostly Europeans. If the lazy buggers have a prayer of making themselves equals of the Americans, the Americans have to be brought down to size. Going green, to match the color of the envy of American prosperity and power, is the lazy-bugger recipe for an equality of shrunken expectations.
    The archbishop's organic bread and communion wine accompanies the British offensive in behalf of the Kyoto Protocol, which a succession of presidents and a unanimous vote of the U.S. Senate consigned to irrelevance. But Kyoto, as disastrous as it would be if a president or the Congress should be so suicidal as to attempt to impose it on the American economy, does not go far enough.
    "It has taken far too long to be ratified as each country fights for its own interests (the United States is notable among countries which have declined to sign)," the ecclesiastical discussion document goes on, and "its targets fall very far short of what is necessary."
    The archbishop will ask the Synod to support a formula for reducing carbon emissions based on a nation's population, not its industrial strength. Such a formula would penalize the United States most of all, and work to the advantage of China and India, first and second in population size and among the very worst of the polluters.
    So the game is afoot. Prime Minister Tony Blair, eager to restore his standing among the worthies of Europe, wants to put global warming atop the agenda of the G-8 group of rich nations. Only this week, the London Independent, the newspaper voice of the Little England that aspires to be even smaller, reported that global warming "experts" have come up with a timetable of distant doom that is every bit as precise as an airline or railroad timetable.
    When the temperature climbs 3.6 degrees above the planet's temperatures prevalent before the Industrial Revolution, the arctic sea ice will melt and polar bears, walruses, the succulent karroo of the South African veldt and the flora of the Fynbos will suffer.
    Or maybe not. Environmental fundamentalism has become the catechism of evangelical atheism, to be taken blindly on faith. Evelyn Waugh, the master of English satire, would surely regret abandoning the Anglicans if he were more than a handful of dust. He would never discard such a rich source of material for his rollicking scoops of earnest upper-class spoofery.
 
    Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050204   Homosexuals catch rare venereal disease
    NEW YORK — Two New York men have been diagnosed with a rare sexually transmitted disease that has recently been making inroads in Europe among homosexual and bisexual men.
    The disease, a rare form of chlamydia known as lymphogranuloma venereum, or LGV, can cause serious illness, permanent disfigurement and fuel the spread of AIDS, according to New York health officials.
    The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed six recent cases in the United States — the two in New York, three in San Francisco and one in Atlanta.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050203   Kansas sets April vote on marriage
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Kansas House of Representatives yesterday approved a constitutional amendment that defines marriage only as the union of one man and one woman, and outlaws civil unions.
    The amendment, which cleared the state Senate last month, goes before Kansas voters April 5.
    If it passes, Kansas would become the 18th state with a constitutional marriage amendment.
    Supporters of traditional values were pleased by the vote.
    "What a great victory for traditional values," said Tamara Cooper, executive director of the Kansas Republican Assembly, on the group's Web site after Kansas House members approved the amendment 86-37.
    Kansas state Rep. Bill McCreary said yesterday he expects it to pass "by an overwhelming margin."
    "This is a very conservative state, and I think they deserve the right to vote on this issue," he said.
    In Idaho, however, it was homosexual-rights supporters who were celebrating yesterday after the state Senate voted down its marriage amendment, 21-14, a few votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed.
    "We're very excited by these results ... we, of course, have been fighting this," said Jim Smith, co-chairman of Your Family, Friends and Neighbors, a homosexual-rights advocacy group.
    The Idaho Senate vote essentially kills the marriage issue for this session, as Idaho House leaders said they wanted any such amendment to first pass the Senate.
    The nation has been struggling with the issue of same-sex "marriage" since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that its state constitution allows such unions. That landmark "Goodridge" decision led to the first U.S. state-sanctioned homosexual "marriages" as of May 17.
    State marriage amendments are intended to prevent courts from finding a right to "marry" same-sex couples in their respective state constitutions. Last year, residents of 13 states — Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah — voted to change their constitutions to recognize only marriages between one man and one woman.
    Four other states — Hawaii, Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada — passed marriage amendments in previous years.
    Homosexual rights and civil liberties groups have filed legal challenges against amendments in Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and as of this week, Oregon.
    A legal challenge to Louisiana's marriage amendment ended last month when it was upheld as constitutional by the Louisiana Supreme Court.
    Meanwhile:
    • Lawmakers in at least six states — Alabama, Iowa, Indiana, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia — are considering constitutional marriage amendments this session. If lawmakers pass these amendments, they will be put to a public vote, most likely in 2006.
    • Lawmakers in three more states — Massachusetts, Tennessee and Wisconsin — have given preliminary approval to marriage constitutional amendments, but must pass the amendments a second time before they can go to voters.
    • Lawmakers in New Jersey and New Mexico have introduced bills to define marriage as the union of a man and woman in state law.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050203   Prosecutors defend Bible-studying jurors
    DENVER — Jurors who sentenced a convicted killer to die did nothing wrong when they studied the Bible during deliberations, prosecutors told the Colorado Supreme Court.
    They want to have the man put back on death row. Defense attorneys challenged Robert Harlan's sentence after discovering that five jurors had looked up Bible verses and talked about them behind closed doors.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050206E   Forum: Defeating judicial tyranny

Former Rep. Bob Barr is upset because the Kansas Supreme Court "ordered" the Kansas legislature to raise taxes for education. ("Tyranny of judicial taxation," Jan. 14.)
    The ruling is outrageous, but Mr. Barr should save his alarm for legislatures that support the charade of judicial "authority" for such rulings. There is no such authority. The powers of the three branches of government over each other are clearly spelled out in the Constitution:
    • The president appoints judges and officials, but the Senate gets to approve or disapprove the appointments.
    • The House may impeach the president, judges and other officials for inappropriate conduct in office; the Senate tries anyone impeached.
    • The courts may rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative branch.
    • The Congress may circumscribe the judicial branch's venue.
    The state constitutions follow the same model.
    In recent years, activist courts have increasingly ruled where they lack authority. Political factions have often praised such incursions for their own ends, knowing legislatures could not enact such matters because they lack popular support.
    Alexander Hamilton called the courts the "weakest" branch of government. We chuckle at this now because the courts seem so powerful.
    Just recently, an individual sued in U.S. District Court to prevent prayer at the presidential Inauguration. The whole country held its collective breath to see if the courts would "allow" the customary invocation and benediction during the ceremony.
    But this is nonsense. Courts cannot "rule" over the executive branch (or over the legislative branch) this way. Even if the court had ruled against prayer, the president need not to have obeyed regarding his own Inauguration. That is beyond the court's jurisdiction.
    Hamilton was right. The courts are weak, for they have no power of enforcement. They have no police, no army — no power of sword or purse. They depend on the good will of the other branches to enforce their directives.
    That good will worked for a long time. The courts made (mostly) sober, well considered rulings that the other branches enforced. But now, the whole "gentlemen's arrangement" threatens to crash because the courts have overstepped their role. Judicial adventurism has swelled a constitutional crisis that must finally come to a head.
    No doubt, Mr. Bush's advisers were relieved they did not have to defy the court at the Inauguration. But eventually they will have to do so, as the courts spin farther out of control. A showdown is inevitable. Indeed, it is only a matter of time until a legislature realizes rulings like that in Kansas are bogus and need not be obeyed. If the Kansas legislature defies the court, what will the court do? Hold them in contempt? Sue? Send the sheriff to arrest them?
    Like most politicians, Mr. Barr has been brainwashed into thinking the courts are supreme. He can't see that the solution to judicial tyranny is right under his nose.
    When courts make silly rulings — e.g., men must be allowed to marry men, that citizens may not speak the name of the Christian God, that perversion must be taught to children in the public schools, that a legislature must enact a judicially dictated agenda — the solution is simply Nothing. Legislatures need not act. Executives need not execute. People need not obey. Thundering silence is enough to defeat judicial overreach.
    All branches of government derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." But the courts' "power" to rule outside their defined purview is an illusion because it is unjust. This will happen when a judge tries to jail a principal because he permitted a Christmas carol or tree at a school.
    The people will not countenance this. Their disobedience will finally break the tyranny of the courts. The only question is when this will happen. But politicians like Mr. Barr will not lead the way. They have too much to lose.
    The Patriots of 1776 did not create a nation by mindlessly saluting every silly law put forward by the British Crown. Their limit was a tax on tea. What will ours be?
    A Republic, as Mr. Reagan famously said, is not a suicide pact.
 
    ELWOOD E. ZIMMERMAN
    Potomac Falls, Va.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050205E   U.N. inaction on genocides
 

By Linda Chavez

The United Nations has become a largely irrelevant, if not positively destructive, institution and the just-released U.N. report on the Darfur atrocities in Sudan proves it.
    After months of study, the U.N.'s Commission of Inquiry on Darfur this week issued its report to Secretary-General Kofi Annan. In typical U.N. double-speak, the commission found the Sudanese government, run by radical Islamist Arabs in the North, is responsible for "crimes under international law" in the systematic rape and murder of tens of thousands of blacks in the south of the country. Yet the commission concluded the government "has not pursued a policy of genocide."
    If the organized killing of 70,000 black Sudanese in the name of Arabification of a majority black nation does not constitute genocide, what does? Arabs have methodically raped thousands of black women and displaced some 1.8 million blacks in an effort to dilute Sudan's black population or eliminate it altogether.
    For all but 10 years since Sudan gained independence from Great Britain in 1956, the country has been involved in bloody civil wars that have killed more than 2 million people and displaced 4 million. Radical Islamists, mostly drawn from the minority Arab population, have killed or driven out black animists and Christians in a series of genocidal campaigns. Yet, the U.N. — as it has in virtually every genocidal bloodbath that has occurred anywhere in the world since its founding in 1946 — remains stymied from intervening in any meaningful way.
    The U.N. did nothing when the murderous Khmer Rouge began piling up more than a million corpses in the killing fields of Cambodia in the mid-1970s. The U.N. did nothing when Hutus slaughtered nearly a million Tutsis in Rwanda in barely 100 days in 1994. The U.N. sat idly by when Serbians began wiping out ethnic Albanians in Kosovo in 1998, a genocide interrupted only when NATO, under U.S. leadership, intervened.
    The United Nations was founded in the aftermath of World War II, just as the world was beginning to learn the full horrors of history's worst genocide, the Holocaust that consumed 6 million Jews and 3 million others in Europe.
    One of the U.N.'s first acts was to pass a Genocide Convention in 1948, which defined genocide "as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, [ethnic], racial, or religious group. .... " But despite condemning genocide, the U.N. failed to enact mechanisms to stop genocide in progress.
    Given the politics of the U.N., in which countries often act in regional or interest-based voting blocks, censuring — much less stopping — genocidal activity becomes nearly impossible. Arab and Muslim nations constitute one of the largest and most powerful U.N. voting blocks, and these countries are loath to criticize their co-ethnics and co-religionists, especially for crimes against non-Arabs or non-Muslims.
    In November, the U.N. General Assembly rejected for the third time a resolution that would have condemned human-rights violations in Sudan, with 91 of the 191 member nations voting against it. Gerald Scott, a U.S. delegate to the General Assembly's committee on social, cultural and humanitarian affairs, said then that "three consecutive failures of member states of the United Nations to present a unified front against well-documented atrocities [represents] nothing less than the complete breakdown of the U.N.'s deliberative bodies related to human rights. If these bodies cannot speak with one voice on an issue as clear as Darfur, what can they do?"
    Precisely. The U.N. response to the Darfur genocide has been to claim it isn't taking place and for its African members to give Sudan a seat as their representative on the Human Rights Commission in 2004. But rather than acknowledge the U.N.'s hypocrisy, count on the largely left-leaning human-rights groups to react to this latest U.N. outrage by criticizing the United States. Already Human Rights Watch has condemned the U.S. for not being eager to turn over the prosecution of war crimes in Darfur to the International Criminal Court, a quasi-U.N. body whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize.
    The problem is not the United States but the United Nations.
 
    Linda Chavez, a nationally syndicated columnist, was U.S. expert to the U.N. subcommission on human rights, 1992-1996.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050206E   More Oil for Food questions

The 219-page interim report on the U.N. Oil for Food Program, which was released late Thursday by the panel headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, constitutes yet another disturbing indictment of the program.
    In some ways, the timing of the report by Mr. Volcker's Independent Inquiry Committee, which provides more details of malfeasance, could not be better: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the United Nations Association and members of the congressional Democratic leadership have launched a vigorous counterattack in recent weeks in an effort to salvage the United Nations' reputation, which has been badly tarnished by the oil-for-food scandal. The crux of their argument is that manipulating the Oil for Food Program wasn't terribly important, because it was just one of the ways in which Saddam Hussein flouted international sanctions dating back to 1991, and that Washington had sometimes opted for strategic reasons not to try to force the U.N. Security Council to act against sanctions-busters, including Russia, Turkey and Jordan. Because this sometimes happened, the argument goes, American policy-makers today have no legitimate right to question the performance of Mr. Annan or the United Nations in managing the program.
    While it is certainly true that Saddam began flouting sanctions long before the program was created in late 1996, Mr. Annan's defenders overlook the reality that the problem became much worse between 1997 and 2003 as a result of policies instituted by Mr. Annan. Claudia Rosett of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies notes that in January 1997, when Mr. Annan became secretary-general, Oil for Food was just a temporary program, permitting Saddam to sell limited amounts of oil in order to purchase relief supplies for Iraqis. But Mr. Annan successfully recommended that the Security Council expand the program — and with it Saddam's ability to amass illicit revenues in order to bribe journalists and foreign politicians, and possibly finance terrorism and reconstitute his weapons programs. According to Senate investigators, from 1997 to 2003, Saddam's oil smuggling reached more than $1.5 billion per year — more than double the level from 1991 to 1996. Since the fall of Saddam two years ago, Mr. Annan has expressed astonishment about the scandal. But back in March 2000, the secretary-general was actually boasting to the Security Council of his managerial success in consolidating and more closely monitoring the oil-for-food program.
    As the Volcker panel shows, however, there were plenty of problems with Mr. Annan's handling of the program, one of which was his selection of Benon Sevan to manage it. Mr. Sevan, the report says, received $160,000 in questionable payments even as he was soliciting business under the program for a firm called Africa Middle East Petroleum Co. (AMEP), a company with which he had close ties. The report said that Mr. Sevan's actions "presented a grave and continuing conflict of interest, were ethically improper and seriously undermined the integrity of the United Nations." The report outlines how Mr. Sevan used his influence to persuade Iraq to sell more than 7 million barrels of oil to AMEP. At a minimum, the report raises still more questions about managing the program not only in Saddam's Iraq but inside the United Nations as well.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050205L   Few barriers to abortion
    Monday's excellent Commentary column by Terry Eastland ("Abortion fandango"), discussing the extreme nature of the abortion right created by Roe v. Wade, itself stopped short of the mark. It is true that Roe made abortion legal for any reason before viability and for maternal health reasons after, but this description fails to note the court's definition of "health."
    According to Doe v. Bolton, a decision issued the same day as Roe, "health" reasons for post-viability abortion include "physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age." That is why it's fair to say that there are no significant legal barriers to abortion during any stage of pregnancy in the United States. Most people, Republican and Democrat alike, think an unlimited right to abortion is wrong.
 
    CATHY CLEAVER RUSE
    Director of planning and information
    Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
    U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
    Washington
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050204E   Bias in ivory towers
 

By David Cowan

It seems that liberals are confused about why conservatives care so deeply about what goes on in the groves of academe. They do not get why conservatives are very vocal about political bias in the classroom, which is combined with lessons in everything from anthropology through to zoology.
    2005 is proving already to be something of a vintage in this respect. First, we had the debacle over comments offered by Larry Summers at Harvard on women in science. Now we have a Colorado professor, Ward Churchill, hopefully no relation to the great statesman Winston Churchill, who wrote an essay comparing those who died in the horror of September 11 with the Nazis who perpetrated the Holocaust.
    Liberals are confused abou