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:  [Supreme Court Battle]   [Life]   [Homosexual Behavior/Perversion]   [Religion/Religious Persecution]   [Education]   [Media]   [Other]

SUPREME COURT BATTLE
S050711C    Justice juggling
S050712       Bush heeds calls to consult on pick for top court
S050712C    Too important for mediocrity
S050713       "The battle on Capitol Hill
S050714      Unlikely nominee
S050715      Hatch's advice
S050715      Chief justice says not retiring
S050715      Court betting
S050715C    The 'growth' of a justice
S050716C    Priscilla Owen was right
S050717      Bush urges quick confirmation to court

LIFE
L050711Va  Virginia delegate tests waters on abortion ban
L050715         Republicans irked by group's 'loyalty oath'

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050713      Defending the Scouts

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R050713       Priest publicly protests transfer
R050714       Falwell college seeks funds
R050715       Ailing Graham declines invite to London crusade
R050715       ARKANSAS   Schools to remove creationist stickers
R050715C    Science and faith
R050717L    Sharing faith

EDUCATION

MEDIA
M050711      Bush finds no friends at networks
M050713C   Getting better
M050715      Biased coverage
M050717C   Separation of print and state

OTHER
O05014Va    Kilgore closes in on Kaine's edge in cash
O050711Md Fundraiser for Steele features top Bush aide
O050712      Group changes tack on teen abstinence
O050712       NORTH DAKOTA   Probation revoked for sex offenders
O050713L     Don't back away from teaching abstinence
O050714C     Political direction signals
O050716       Donor dollars flow to Hillary
O050717       Federal STD prevention found healthy by CDC
O050717Md Democrats: Move primary from September to June

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

M050711   Bush finds no friends at networks

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 11, 2005

President Bush just can't win with the broadcast networks.
    More than two-thirds of the news stories on ABC, NBC and CBS covering the first 100 days of Mr. Bush's second term were negative, according to an analysis released today by the District-based Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).
    It's actually a slight improvement: During the first 100 days of his initial term in office, the coverage was 71 percent negative, according to a similar CMPA study conducted in 2001.
    In comparison, President Clinton's first-term news coverage was 59 percent negative in 1993.
    The three networks also seem to be boycotting Mr. Bush this time around. He rated 619 stories during the study period in 2001-- but just 250 stories this year, the study found.
    "Presidents tend to get bad coverage during their second terms. The press is sick of them by then. The Iraq war and the weapons-of-mass-destruction question was a particular factor for Mr. Bush this time," said CMPA director Robert Lichter.
    "Many journalists felt tricked by the White House, and consequently were not going to let the president get away with anything," Mr. Lichter said.
    "But the public isn't going to let the news media get away with anything either," he added. "The public is more critical and ask more questions about news coverage these days -- and what offends them most is negativism."
    The CMPA study analyzed stories that aired Jan. 20 to April 29.
    ABC was the most critical -- 78 percent of the coverage of the president on "ABC World News Tonight" was negative. On CBS, the coverage was 71 percent negative. The study called NBC "more balanced" at 57 percent negative.
    The analysis also flagged comments deemed judgmental or overtly negative.
    "Without comment about how he felt taking the nation to war on such flawed assumptions, President Bush agreed it's time to go to work," said CBS correspondent John Roberts on March 31.
Some analysts of political demographics question whether the shift to the South and West necessarily will mean long-term gains for Republicans.
    "The people moving to the Carolinas are from the blue [Democratic] states to a large degree," says William H. Frey, a population analyst at the Brookings Institution. "They are coming from the Midwest, from New Jersey and New York, and they are going to bring with them certainly Southern fiscal values but also maybe Northern social values."
    Florida, where population growth increasingly hails from heavily Democratic states in the North, will turn into a more fierce political battleground as it becomes more socially diverse, Mr. Frey suggests.
    "They are getting younger, more mainstream suburbanites from the Northeast in Orlando and Tampa, but also more diverse, minority immigrant populations, all of which are different from the Florida we've seen in the past," he says.
    But Mr. Black thinks this increased diversity may not be enough to change the long-term political makeup of the South, which, if anything, has become even more Republican.
    "If you look at younger white voters in the South, they are even more Republican than the older white voters," he says. "As these younger white voters age, they are going to be even more cohesively Republican than their predecessors.
    "So you could have more Democrats moving in from outside, but if the native population in the South becomes even more Republican, that may not lead to the diminishment of the GOP in the South."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050712   Group changes tack on teen abstinence

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 12, 2005

A leading pediatricians group is drawing fire for "diluting" its previous position on teen sexual abstinence and urging doctors to "help ensure" that all teens have access to contraception, including emergency contraception.
    The American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) new teen pregnancy prevention policy, released this month in its journal, Pediatrics, is "a great disappointment," said doctors with the Medical Institute for Sexual Health in Austin, Texas.
    It "rehashes old, failed arguments" about teen pregnancy prevention and fails to look at "the whole child," said the institute, which supports sexual abstinence for teens.
    Previous AAP policy said: "Abstinence counseling is an important role for all pediatricians," said leaders with the American College of Pediatricians in Blountville, Tenn. The new AAP policy not only drops that language but "dilutes" support for abstinence by omitting favorable research about it while favoring the "safe sex" approach, they said.
    Other groups, however, are applauding the new policy, which was written by an AAP committee led by Dr. Jonathan D. Klein of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
    The AAP should be "commended and applauded for following the research, in spite of the political pressure to do otherwise," said Bill Smith, public policy director for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, which supports comprehensive sexuality education and opposes federal funding of programs that teach a strict sexual-abstinence message.
    The AAP's new language on emergency contraception is also a welcome change, said Kirsten Moore, president of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, which sponsors a Web site on the issue at www.backupyourbirthcontrol.org.
    "Early access to emergency contraception is a key component of helping reduce the rate of adolescent pregnancy," Ms. Moore said. The AAP's new policy means doctors will start educating each other about it, she said.
    Emergency contraception, which also is called EC, refers to a series of high-dose birth control pills taken within 72 hours of unprotected sexual intercourse. The pills can prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation or end a pregnancy by blocking implantation of a fertilized egg.
    Questions have been raised about whether EC is safe for teens, and the Food and Drug Administration has yet to approve an EC product, Plan B, for nonprescription use.
    Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America said yesterday she was surprised that the AAP would sign off on a policy giving all teens access to "the morning-after pill."
    The main reason it has not been approved for nonprescription use is that it has not been tested adequately on teens, she said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S050712   Bush heeds calls to consult on pick for top court

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 12, 2005

Hours after learning that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would retire, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont held a press conference and talked about the importance of President Bush's consulting Democrats before naming her replacement.
    "Speaking of the Constitution -- excuse me just a moment," the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee was saying when he got interrupted by a staffer for an important phone call.
    It was Mr. Bush on the line to discuss the new Supreme Court opening.
    Mr. Leahy and other top Senate Democrats, who will gather at the White House today for discussions about an O'Connor replacement, have said Mr. Bush is off to a good start consulting them.
    "The president has taken a good first step," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
    Republicans say the White House is engaging in an "unprecedented" level of consultation with the Senate and especially Democrats, whose only power to stop a nominee would be through a filibuster.
    "We have reached out to more than 60 senators now, and we have actually consulted with most of those," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "We are continuing those outreach calls and meetings to listen to what senators have to say and hear what their views are."
    Democrats warned that just letting them talk to deaf ears doesn't add up to consultation.
    "Meaningful consultation is more than checking off a box," said Mr. Leahy, who said he initially thought the presidential phone call that came during his press conference was some kind of setup. "It means a real dialogue that can help the president find a good nominee who could have overwhelming bipartisan support."
    Mr. Leahy said yesterday that this morning's meeting is "a solid step toward meaningful consultation."
    "It's been my experience that many presidents have consulted, and when they did, it led to good candidates and a much smoother confirmation process," he said. "I look forward to working with the president to help him bring the country together with this decision."
    Republicans say Mr. Bush already has exceeded his responsibility to take advice from the Senate.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S050717   Bush urges quick confirmation to court

By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 17, 2005

President Bush yesterday urged the Senate to move swiftly after he announces his nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, citing past votes that occurred an average of 57 days after a presidential nomination.
    The president said the last two nominations to the high court -- both by former President Bill Clinton -- offer "examples of fair treatment and a reasonable timetable for Senate action."
    He cited the Senate confirmation of Mr. Clinton's nominee -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- just 42 days after her name was submitted in 1993, and when Mr. Clinton in 1994 tapped Justice Stephen G. Breyer for the bench. He won Senate approval 73 days later.
    "These examples show that the thorough consideration of a nominee does not require months of delay," the president said.
    There are 79 days until the Supreme Court reconvenes on the first Monday of October, and Mr. Bush said he plans to "make my nomination in a timely manner so the nominee can be confirmed before the start of the court's new term in October."
    Assuming that a candidate could be confirmed within the construct presented by the president, a nomination would be needed by the end of the July.
    Mr. Bush vowed to present an acceptable candidate, but that feat was made more difficult when Justice O'Connor, a moderate swing vote, and not conservative Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, retired.
    "I will be guided by clear principles as I make my decision. My nominee will be a fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values. The nominee will meet the highest standards of intellect, character and ability, and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country," Mr. Bush said.
    The president also reiterated his desire that the Senate confirmation process "rises above partisanship." He met last week with top Democratic and Republican lawmakers from the Senate, and administration officials have talked with more than 60 members of the Senate.
    "Members of the Senate are receiving a full opportunity to provide their opinions and recommendations, and I appreciate their advice," Mr. Bush said. "When I met with Senate leaders, we discussed our shared goal of making sure that the confirmation process is dignified. The nominee deserves fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote."
    The list of potential candidates has grown dramatically since Justice O'Connor announced her retirement on July 1. Mentioned most often when Chief Justice Rehnquist was expected to step down were Samuel Alito, Emilio Garza, J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts Jr., Michael McConnell and J. Harvie Wilkinson III, all federal appeals court judges.
    But first lady Laura Bush expanded the pool of names last week when she said, "I would really like for him to name another woman."
    The president this month succeeded in getting two women, Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen, on the federal bench, but only after a fierce battle in the Senate.
    Mentioned most often now are federal Judges Edith Hollan Jones and Edith Brown Clement, although new names have emerged, including Alice M. Batchelder of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati; Deborah Cook, a former Ohio Supreme Court judge whom the president appointed to the 6th Circuit; Deanell Reece Tacha of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver; Karen Williams from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, and Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, offered by Senate Democrats.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050717   Federal STD prevention found healthy by CDC

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 17, 2005

Some 32 million cases of gonorrhea were averted in the last three decades, thanks in part to government-funded prevention efforts, federal researchers said last week.
    This shows that sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention efforts are "effective and economically sound strategies" for improving the nation's health, said Dr. John M. Douglas Jr., director of the STD prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
    CDC research, released last week at a conference in the Netherlands, examined the impact of federal funding of STD prevention programs through state and local health departments. Researchers estimated that prevention programs resulted in 32 million fewer cases of gonorrhea between 1971 and 2003.
    They also estimated that $5 billion in direct medical costs was saved because of reductions in cases of gonorrhea and syphilis between 1990 and 2003.
    At last week's conference, the CDC released new information about chlamydia, the United States' most commonly reported STD with 877,478 cases reported in 2003. About 2.2 percent of the adult population, ages 14-39, has chlamydia, the CDC said.
    In general, men and women have about the same rates of infection. However, when specific age groups and other characteristics are examined, young women, low-income youths and blacks have a high prevalence of chlamydia.
    Chlamydia can be transmitted via vaginal, oral and anal sex. It is curable with antibiotics; however, it doesn't cause any symptoms in about three-quarters of infected women and about half of infected men. Left untreated, chlamydia damages and scars reproductive organs and can cause infertility and other severe reproductive problems in women. It can also infect the rectum and throat if contracted in those areas.
    The CDC advises teens to practice sexual abstinence as the "only 100 percent effective method of STD prevention." It also recommends annual chlamydia screenings for all sexually active women under 25.
    Studies have shown that proper condom use reduces the risk of chlamydia by about half, says the Medical Institute for Sexual Health in Austin, Texas.
    Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine researchers said last month they believe many young adults would use a free or low-cost chlamydia home test kit, especially if it were available online.
    Last year, 1,100 free kits were distributed to young women around Baltimore. Some 400 samples were returned for testing, with confidential results given by telephone. Of the 10 percent of women who tested positive, 95 percent sought treatment, the researchers said.
    The Miami Herald this month reported that local doctors are seeing cases of a rare chlamydia that first appeared in Europe two years ago. The new chlamydia, mostly found in homosexual or bisexual men, can cause scarring of the lower digestive tract, long-term abdominal pain and increase the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S050715    Hatch's advice
    "In 1993, President Clinton sought my input when considering a replacement for the retiring Justice Byron White," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, writes at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com).
    "Some senators are today fond of waving my book 'Square Peg,' in which I described cautioning President Clinton that confirming some candidates he was considering, such as then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, would be difficult. President Clinton instead nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and she was easily confirmed." Mr. Hatch said.
    "President Clinton sought my input without my demanding it because he believed it would help him fulfill his constitutional responsibility for making judicial nominations. He did so not because Senate Republicans threatened filibusters or demanded some kind of veto power over his nominations. We did not try to impose a 'consensus' standard or insist that a nominee meet some super-majority 'widespread support' threshold."
    "While I appreciate publicity for my book, I have yet to hear a Democratic senator who holds it up also quote from page 126, where I write: 'One of the consequences of a presidential election ... is that the winner has the right to appoint nominees to the court.' In fact, at the same time I was giving President Clinton the input he sought, I also said on the Senate floor: 'The President won the election. He ought to have the right to appoint the judges he wants to.' Some who today demand consultation appear to have rejected that notion altogether."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050716   Donor dollars flow to Hillary

July 16, 2005

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    In a Senate race that could have implications for the 2008 presidential contest, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton raised more than $6 million between April and June.
    Campaign reports filed by Senate candidates yesterday with the Federal Election Commission showed the former first lady, a New York Democrat, had $12.6 million cash on hand at the end of last month, even though she doesn't yet have a clear opponent.
    Manhattan lawyer Edward Cox, a son-in-law of former President Richard M. Nixon, has begun preparations to challenge Mrs. Clinton, and Republican Party officials also are courting Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro as a possible challenger.
    Patti Solis Doyle, executive director of Friends of Hillary, said she expects "very well-funded opposition next year."
    Mrs. Clinton's first campaign for the Senate in 2000 smashed fundraising records, with she and her Republican opponent, then-Rep. Rick Lazio, together spending about $80 million.
    A strong showing in next year's Senate race could give added momentum to Mrs. Clinton's early front-runner status among possible Democratic candidates in the 2008 presidential race. But a bruising contest could slow her down.
    Another closely watched Senate race is in Pennsylvania, where incumbent Republican Rick Santorum is facing a challenge from the son of a former governor.
    Mr. Santorum raised $3.6 million in three months and reported $5.7 million cash on hand as he prepares to fend off Democratic charges that he is too far to the right on social issues.
    The challenger, state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., reported raising $1.9 million between April and June, ending the period with $1.6 million cash on hand.
    In Florida, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson raised about $2.2 million, ending June with $5 million cash on hand. He has raised more than $6 million in preparation for his 2006 campaign.
    Rep. Katherine Harris, who plans to challenge Mr. Nelson for his Senate seat, reported raising more than $400,000 in the three-month period.
    Mrs. Harris, a Republican who as Florida's secretary of state played a central role in the 2000 presidential election recount, has raised about $860,000 so far this year, and ended June with $406,808 cash on hand.
    Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson has amassed $2.3 million for his expected re-election bid next year. He took in $867,000 from April through June, according to his FEC report, although he has not formally announced that he's running for a second Senate term.
    That dwarfed the nearly $23,000 for Republican challenger Don Stenberg, who didn't enter the Senate race until late April. Republican candidate David Kramer announced his candidacy on June 28 and will not file a campaign finance report with the FEC until the end of September.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L50715   Republicans irked by group's 'loyalty oath'

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 15, 2005

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation required families coming to Washington for the group's convention last month to promise not to express disagreement with the group's stance in favor of expanding embryonic stem-cell research.
    The group's application for families attending their biennial Children's Congress in Washington last month included the following language: "if there is discussion of such controversial topics as embryonic stem-cell research, I will either embrace the JDRF legislative position on such topics or will not work against the JDRF position."
    Several House Republicans angrily complained, saying the group was silencing families.
    "We find it deeply disturbing that your organization would go to the extent of silencing participants who may object to embryonic stem-cell research on moral or scientific grounds," read a June 23 letter signed by 18 House Republicans, including Reps. Dave Weldon of Florida, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Todd Akin of Missouri.
    "The above statement clearly calls for applicants to be willing to embrace ethically questionable research or be willing to muzzle their personal beliefs and moral convictions," said the letter, a copy of which was obtained this week by The Washington Times.
    The lawmakers called the language a "loyalty oath" and asked JDRF to remove it.
    JDRF's Peter Van Etten responded in a July 12 letter, saying "there is no loyalty oath," and no families have complained about the application.
    The form covers numerous technical details and is part of an effort to "make sure that delegates and their families, before attending, are comfortable with publicly discussing the devastating complications of diabetes in front of their young children, or 'controversial topics' such as stem-cell research (the example given in the application), clinical trials of drugs in children, or research using animal models."
    The group sponsored 150 children with juvenile diabetes and their parents to come to Washington and visit their lawmakers' offices, raising awareness of the disease and urging them to fight for a cure. The event has been held every other year since 1999.
    But Mr. Weldon said Mr. Van Etten's letter "is as deceptive as the methods they use to lobby Congress." He said the group "didn't answer my question" about removing the language and didn't explain the reason for it.
    Peter Cleary, JDRF's lead spokesman, said yesterday families can say whatever they want, but the language simply encourages them to use their brief time with lawmakers to push increased funding and awareness of the disease, and not to focus on areas where they might disagree with JDRF.
    Application language for the next Congress will be reviewed in about a year, he said, and if families complain, JDRF will consider changing it.
    Mr. Weldon said JDRF is being deceptive by pushing embryonic stem-cell research as the way to cure juvenile diabetes, when that approach is far from proven. The group downplays other avenues such as adult stem-cell and cord blood research, which are proving to be more effective, he said.
    JDRF is fighting to expand President Bush's 2001 embryonic stem-cell policy, and bills itself as "the unequivocal leader of advocacy" for such research since 1998.
    But Mr. Cleary said it's "patently incorrect" to say JDRF focuses on that alone, because last year it spent $4.5 million on embryonic stem-cell research and $2.5 million on adult stem-cell research, as well as millions more on other types of research.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050715   Ailing Graham declines invite to London crusade

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 15, 2005

Evangelist Billy Graham will not conduct a crusade in London in November because of the distance and health concerns, his organization announced this week.
    "After much prayerful consideration, I determined I should not be that far from home," Mr. Graham said in a letter notifying those who had invited him. "This was a difficult decision because London has played such a significant part in the life of my ministry."
    Mr. Graham, 86, has a variety of ailments, including Parkinson's disease and prostate cancer. During his crusade last month at Flushing Meadows Corona Park in Queens, N.Y., his nightly sermons each lasted less than 25 minutes. His wife, Ruth, is bedridden.
    But on the last night of the crusade, Mr. Graham was buoyed enough by the crowds that he told New Yorkers he might return. About 242,000 people had packed the park during the three-day crusade.
    "With God's help," he said, "we'll be back to see you again."
    Mr. Graham then hinted he might travel to London, the site of several enormously successful crusades, including a 12-week run in 1954 that packed Harringay Arena. The crusade attracted royalty, celebrities and made believers of newspaper critics. In 1955, Mr. Graham preached in Glasgow and at London's Wembley Stadium.
    The evangelist told the crowd last month that an Anglican minister, representing the London planning committee for the crusade, was seated on stage. "This is not the end," Mr. Graham told the crowd. "Others may think so, but I don't."
    But the elderly evangelist had second thoughts after the New York event. It's unclear whether last week's bombings in London played a role in his decision, and Mr. Graham said this week he was praying for Londoners, especially the victims and their families.
    Mr. Graham's eldest son, Franklin, who has effectively replaced his father as the head of the ministry, will continue conducting crusades. A spokeswoman said yesterday the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association hasn't yet raised enough funds to pay off the $6.8 million cost of the New York crusade.
    The evangelist's next scheduled public event is an Aug. 26 dedication of the Billy Graham Library at Billy Graham Evangelistic Association headquarters in Charlotte, N.C.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S050713       "The battle on Capitol Hill over filling one, possibly two, U.S. Supreme Court vacancies is heating up fast. Faced with a high-powered lineup of GOP tacticians and advisers, Senate Democrats are now working to assemble their own team," Eamon Javers writes in a news analysis for BusinessWeek Online (www.businessweek.com).
    "One key person under consideration to lead the effort, several Democratic sources tell BusinessWeek Online, is former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine, chairman of the board at Walt Disney and chairman of law firm DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary. He has offices in New York and Washington, D.C. Mitchell also serves on Staples' board of directors," Mr. Javers said.
    "Mitchell is traveling and was unavailable for comment for this story, a spokesperson said. Through an aide, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who is coordinating Democratic efforts, declined to comment."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S050715   Chief justice says not retiring

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 15, 2005

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said last night that despite persistent rumors and mounting speculation based on his poor health, he is not on the verge of retiring.
    "I'm not about to announce my retirement," the 80-year-old jurist said in a statement released yesterday shortly after he was discharged from an Arlington hospital where he had been treated for two days for a fever.
    "I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement," he said in the brief statement. "I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."
    Chief Justice Rehnquist underwent a tracheotomy last year as part of treatment for thyroid cancer. Ever since, he has been the subject of continuous retirement speculation.
    As the last court session drew to a close last month, however, speculation about Chief Justice Rehnquist exploded. When Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement last month, some court watchers were surprised and many surmised that it was only a matter of time before Chief Justice Rehnquist, too, would announce his retirement.
    The two sides in the massive fight over filling vacancies on the federal courts braced for two vacancies and put their supporters and financial backers on red alert. Speculation reached a fever pitch early last week when columnist Robert Novak reported confidently that Chief Justice Rehnquist would retire before the week's end.
    When no announcement had come by midday Friday, Mr. Novak said on national television that Justice Rehnquist was waiting for Air Force One -- carrying President Bush home from the Group of Eight summit in Britain -- to touch down at Andrews Air Force Base before making the announcement public.
    Several TV news stations carried Mr. Bush's landing Friday afternoon live, but no retirement came.
    When asked about his plans later Friday evening, Justice Rehnquist tartly told reporters keeping vigil outside his Arlington home: "That's for me to know and you to find out."
    Many then speculated that Monday morning would bring the retirement announcement and a full-scale judicial war over a double vacancy on the high court. Last night's statement from the chief justice, however, puts to rest those rumors.
    The announcement ends "the silly game of uninformed speculation about the chief justice's health," said Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a lobby group for conservative judicial nominees.
    After Justice Rehnquist's statement last night, the White House said that Mr. Bush had not been informed in advance about the statement but that it brought welcomed the news.
    "The chief justice is doing an outstanding job," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "We are pleased he will continue his great service to the nation."
    Chief Justice Rehnquist has been on the court for 33 years, 19 of them as chief justice, the longest tenure of anyone in that post since John Marshall in the early 1800s.
    Both sides of the imminent battle over replacing Justice O'Connor sheathed their partisan swords to offer kind tributes to the chief justice.
    "We're happy to hear the good news that Chief Justice Rehnquist is able to remain on the court," said Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way. "While we strongly disagree with his judicial philosophy, we have long admired his love of the court and his personal courage."
    Mr. Rushton also saw the announcement as good news.
    "This allows President Bush to turn his full attention to the serious business of replacing Justice O'Connor with a principled constitutionalist," he said. "It puts to rest the rhetoric of an immediate, sweeping overhaul of the court."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050715   Biased coverage
    "An assistant editorial page editor with the St. Paul, Minn., Pioneer Press has written a column, headlined 'Why They Hate Us,' castigating his fellow journalists for biased coverage of the Iraq War," the Media Research Center's Rich Noyes reports at www.mediaresearch.org.
    Mark Yost explained that he saw the same media pattern when he served in the U.S. Navy in the 1980s.
    "Substitute 'insurgent' for 'Sandinista,' 'Iraq' for 'Soviet Union,' 'Bush' for 'Reagan' and 'war on terror' for 'Cold War,' and the stories need little editing," he said. "The U.S. is 'bad,' our enemies 'understandable' if not downright 'good.' "
    Mr. Yost, in his July 12 column, chastised most of the Iraq coverage as inaccurate.
    "I know the reporting's bad because I know people in Iraq," he said. "A Marine colonel buddy just finished a stint overseeing the power grid. When's the last time you read a story about the progress being made on the power grid? Or the new desalination plant that just came on-line, or the school that just opened, or the Iraqi policeman who died doing something heroic? No, to judge by the dispatches, all the Iraqis do is stand outside markets and government buildings waiting to be blown up."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S050715   Court betting
    Internet bettors think the odds are good that a Hispanic, possibly Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, will be confirmed as the next justice on the Supreme Court, Reuters news agency reports.
    Dublin-based Tradesports.com on Wednesday put the odds that Mr. Gonzales will replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at 9 to 1, while Emilio Garza, a U.S. appeals court judge, was the favorite at 4 to 1.
    The numbers have reversed in Mr. Garza's favor over the last week or so of the political battle, said Mike Knesevitch, a spokesman for the Web site, which is designed as an exchange that allows traders to buy and sell option contracts.
    On sites that let gamblers bet against the house, Mr. Gonzales remains the favorite.
    Costa Rica-based Bodog.com has Mr. Gonzalez at 3 to 2, followed by John Roberts, another U.S. appeals court judge, at 2 to 1. Mr. Garza's odds are 4 to 1.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050715       ARKANSAS   Schools to remove creationist stickers
    BEEBE -- The Beebe School Board will remove creationist stickers put into science textbooks to counter the theory of evolution.
    After receiving complaints from residents, the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union threatened to sue the school district. The stickers described evolution as a "controversial theory" and named an "intelligent designer" as a possibility to describe the origins of life.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S050714   Unlikely nominee
    "Though he defended Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against conservative critics, President Bush now appears highly unlikely to nominate Gonzales to replace retiring Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor," Fred Barnes writes at the Weekly Standard Web site (www.weeklystandard.com).
    "Nor is Gonzales expected to be chosen to fill a second vacancy on the high court should Chief Justice William Rehnquist or another justice step down in the near future," Mr. Barnes said.
    "The president, of course, could change his mind and pick Gonzales. But a better bet now is that he will choose a woman, an option recommended by first lady Laura Bush. Judge Edith Brown Clement of the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals is considered a possibility. Bush, who met with Senate leaders [Tuesday] to discuss the court vacancy, is expected to announce a nominee by the end of July.
    "It is unclear how seriously the president ever regarded Gonzales as a potential court choice or if he was steered away from Gonzales at the urging of conservatives who want Bush to move the court to the right in its judicial philosophy. But the president is believed to have had reasons for not picking Gonzales all along.
    "One is that he just installed Gonzales in the AG job, one of the top four Cabinet posts, a few months ago. Having already rewarded Gonzales with a promotion, he doesn't owe him another one. The elevation to head the Justice Department reflected Bush's great admiration for Gonzales, who had been chief White House counsel.
    "Another reason is that Gonzales hasn't proven himself yet in the AG job. He was confirmed, after a Senate fight, in January. It would be out of character for Bush to move Gonzales to a higher position before he had a chance to develop a strong record at Justice.
    "And one more reason is that the president doesn't need to name Gonzales to the Supreme Court to woo the Hispanic vote further. At least Bush doesn't think so. He is said to feel that his commitment to advancement of Hispanics is clear. His share of the Hispanic vote jumped from 35 percent in 2000 to an estimated 42 percent in 2004."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050712   NORTH DAKOTA   Probation revoked for sex offenders
    FARGO -- North Dakota is revoking probation on more sex offenders, partly because of increased scrutiny since the arrest of convicted sex offender in the death of a University of North Dakota student, state corrections officials say.
    The state has revoked probation for 22 sex offenders so far this year, five more than in all of 2003.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050717Md   Democrats: Move primary from September to June

By Tom Stuckey
ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 17, 2005

ANNAPOLIS -- Maryland Democrats want to move the party's primary elections from September to June to give their candidates more time to raise money and campaign directly against Republican opponents.
    Party leaders say they are concerned about their candidates pummeling each other in September gubernatorial and U.S. Senate primary races, leaving the party fractured and with about five weeks to recover before the general elections. They say the change will help them stop Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. from winning a second term and Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele from winning the Senate race.
    Democratic leaders such as Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, from Maryland's 5th Congressional District, and state Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. have already proposed the move, from early September to early June.
    However, supporters acknowledge they will have difficulty getting enough votes to make the change when the General Assembly reconvenes in January, even though the majority of lawmakers are Democrats.
    Republican lawmakers are expected to vote against such a change, and Mr. Ehrlich plans a veto. So the backers would need solid support from Democrats to override a veto.
    Mr. Miller, Prince George's Democrat, said he has enough votes for an override in the Senate, but there is less enthusiasm for an earlier primary in the House of Delegates, where 85 votes are needed to pass a bill over the governor's objections.
    "I don't know how we'd get 85 votes," said House Majority Leader Kumar P. Barve, Montgomery County Democrat. "I think most conservative Democrats and rural Democrats don't think it's a good idea to change the rules late in the game."
    Mr. Miller said state Democrats should take a lesson from what happened last fall in Washington, where Democrat Christine Gregoire defeated Republican Dino Rossi by just 291 votes out of 2.9 million cast.
    He said Mrs. Gregoire had to spend more than $1 million in the primary to defend against a "marginal candidate," which left her little time after a mid-September primary to focus on Mr. Rossi.
    A measure in Washington's legislative session this year failed to move the primary to August.
    If Mr. Steele runs for the U.S. Senate, as expected, neither he nor Mr. Ehrlich should have significant opposition in the primary election. But that's not the case for Democrats.
    Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley are preparing to run for the gubernatorial nomination. And former Rep. Kweisi Mfume and Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, from Maryland's 3rd Congressional District, are running for the seat of retiring Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes, a Democrat.
    House Speaker Michael E. Busch is not among the supporters for the change.
    Mr. Busch, Anne Arundel Democrat, said he has heard from many House Democrats that they would prefer a September primary. One concern is that a June primary would come about the time local elected officials are wrapping up work on their annual budgets, which would subject them to pressures from opponents as they make difficult decisions on spending and taxes.
    Republicans say Democratic leaders are just trying to change the rules to get at the governor.
    "It's part of the continual game playing and overplaying the Democratic legislative leaders do to try to hurt the governor," said Greg Massoni, Mr. Ehrlich's press secretary.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O05014Va   Kilgore closes in on Kaine's edge in cash

By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 14, 2005

Virginia gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore, a Republican, is catching up to Democratic candidate Timothy M. Kaine in filling his war chest, according to campaign finance reports released yesterday.
    The latest fundraising reports, which span June 2 to June 30, show Mr. Kilgore raised $2.11 million, bringing his overall fundraising total to an estimated $10.8 million. The former state attorney general spent $740,000 during the period and had $4.6 million cash on hand as of June 30.
    Mr. Kaine raised $1.03 million during that period, bringing his fundraising total to an estimated $11.1 million. The lieutenant governor spent $1.13 million during the period and had $5.1 million cash on hand as of June 30.
    Mr. Kaine had held the lead in fundraising all year, partly because of a $1.5 million donation from the Democratic National Committee.
    Mr. Kilgore has the support of the Republican Governors Association, which is raising money for his campaign and paying to air television ads on his behalf.
    Fundraising numbers for H. Russell Potts Jr., the Republican state senator from Winchester who is running as an independent, will be made available tomorrow.
    With nearly $22 million in the coffers for the two major-party candidates, this year's gubernatorial race is on track to exceed the 2001 race in fundraising and spending.
    The race between Democrat Mark Warner and former state Attorney General Mark L. Earley, a Republican, cost more than $30 million.
    Mr. Warner, a telecommunications mogul, spent almost $20 million, including $4.7 million of his own money, to win the governor's race, shattering gubernatorial fundraising records in Virginia. Mr. Earley raised about $11.5 million.
    President Bush is slated to host a fundraiser for Mr. Kilgore next Thursday at a residence in McLean.
    Invitations promise a "very intimate" evening and a sit-down dinner with the president. Space for the dinner is limited, suggesting it will raise a hefty sum for Mr. Kilgore.
    Both campaigns said the numbers show wide support for their candidate.
    "This is just proving that the momentum is with Jerry Kilgore," said campaign spokesman Tucker Martin.
    "We are encouraged by the broad and diverse support that our fundraising success indicates," Kaine campaign manager Mike Henry said in a statement.
    The Kaine campaign noted that 1,562 of its 1,605 donors were Virginians, and that 822 of them were new donors.
    Such figures for the Kilgore campaign were not available.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050713   Priest publicly protests transfer

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 13, 2005

A popular priest who is being forced out as pastor of a Georgetown parish by Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, archbishop of Washington, has groused publicly about his ouster, and his congregation is rallying to his defense.
    Parishioners at the red-brick Church of the Epiphany, where Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry occasionally worship and manners maven Letitia Baldridge is a member, have demanded a meeting with the cardinal on the transfer of the Rev. Winthrop Brainerd.
    "People were stunned, and they started coming up to me and asking what they can do," said Gregory Doolan, chairman of the parish council.
    Parish council members say they are getting no response from Cardinal McCarrick on their request for a meeting.
    Cardinal McCarrick told The Washington Times that Father Brainerd is "a good priest" and a great deal of "thought and prayer" went into the priest's reassignment. But he declined to discuss the matter in detail, saying it was a personnel issue.
    Members attending July 3 Masses at the church said they were stunned to find a farewell letter from the priest in the Sunday bulletins.
    "You will all know this was not my choice," Father Brainerd wrote. Retirement "was forced upon me so that there would be 'more vitality' at Epiphany. You will excuse me if I say that I had not noticed the lack of it."
    The 65-year-old priest revealed that he was informed of his transfer on June 28, the 18th anniversary of his 1987 ordination.
    During his eight-year tenure, Father Brainerd tripled Mass attendance, brought in an influx of young Catholics, negotiated the purchase of a new pipe organ, oversaw the renovation of the parish hall and raised funds for painting, new woodwork, pews and repairs to a church bell for the sanctuary.
    As of Sept. 1, he will assist at St. Bernadette Catholic Church in Silver Spring.
    The archdiocese has reassigned 25 priests in recent months, spokeswoman Susan Gibbs said. The Rev. Paul Lee of Our Lady of Victory Catholic Church in the District will replace Father Brainerd.
    Father Brainerd declined to comment about his reassignment, citing his vow of obedience.
    Catholic priests commonly work well past the age of 65. Cardinal McCarrick, who just turned 75, has said he is willing to remain in office indefinitely.
    "We are constantly being told to pray for vocations to the priesthood, and yet here we are witnessing a good, holy and very able priest being treated as if he were suddenly of no use and being hurriedly shipped off as if to a nursing home to await his looming death," Catherine Gunn, a finance committee member, wrote in one of several letters to the cardinal from parishioners.
    Some members speculate that the Church of the Epiphany, one of the diocese's smallest parishes, has fallen short of fundraising goals for Cardinal McCarrick's "Forward in Faith" capital funds campaign, and, therefore, Father Brainerd must go.
    "We're just breaking even," Mr. Doolan said. "But if we have to pay an archdiocesan tax, we wouldn't be."
    Dean Hoge, a Catholic University sociologist who co-wrote "Pastors in Transition: Why Clergy Leave Local Ministry," called Father Brainerd's letter "very unusual."
    "It's like an attack on the bishop," he said. "It shows some kind of breakdown of communication. Normally, this doesn't happen. Usually if there are serious differences of opinion, it's done within house."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050711Va   Virginia delegate tests waters on abortion ban

By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 11, 2005

A conservative Virginia state delegate is testing support for reinstating a ban on abortion that dates back to 1847, in hope that the U.S. Supreme Court eventually will allow states to decide the issue.
    Delegate Robert G. Marshall is asking the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor if they would sign or vote for legislation reinstating the ban, noting the announced retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
    Justice O'Connor played a key role in cases in 1989 and 1992 that narrowly upheld the high court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that established abortion rights.
    "The candidates running for statewide office have an obligation to answer the question [on] what would they do if the Supreme Court threw it back to the states," said Mr. Marshall, Manassas Republican. "This is a live issue now with her resignation. It's not far-fetched."
    None of the candidates has responded formally to Mr. Marshall, but each gubernatorial candidate weighed in on the issue when contacted by The Washington Times.
    "I would adamantly oppose that," said H. Russell Potts Jr., a Republican state senator from Winchester who is running as an independent. "It would be a trip back into the Dark Ages."
    Mr. Potts, who is pro-choice, said he thinks he is the most moderate of the three gubernatorial candidates on the issue.
    Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, said as governor he would enforce current restrictions on abortion and work to pass an enforceable ban on partial-birth abortion. He also said he would ensure women's access to health care and legal contraception and promote abstinence and adoption.
    "We should reduce abortion in this manner, rather than by criminalizing women and doctors," Mr. Kaine said in a statement.
    Former Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore, a Republican, is reviewing Mr. Marshall's request.
    "Jerry Kilgore's position on abortion is clear: He opposes abortion, but recognizes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother," said Kilgore spokesman Tim Murtaugh.
    Mr. Marshall said that if the Supreme Court allows states to set abortion laws, he would propose reinstating the statewide ban in place from 1847 to 1969. "That is my hope," he said.
He has the support of conservative groups, including the Family Foundation of Virginia.
    "Virginia is the birthplace of our nation, and it would be fitting if the return to the principles our founders built the nation upon began in the commonwealth," said Victoria Cobb, the group's executive director. "The preservation of life most principally."
    Regardless of the makeup of the Supreme Court, Mrs. Cobb said, voters should understand the position of each candidate on abortion and reproductive rights.
    She said Virginians are "in general pro-life, and growing more so all the time."
    A June gubernatorial poll conducted by SurveyUSA for WSLS-TV in Roanoke showed that 54 percent of Virginians surveyed were pro-choice, while 41 percent were pro-life.
    National polls show that about 63 percent favor keeping Roe v. Wade in place and 30 percent want the ruling overturned. Those numbers have changed little in the decades since the decision.
    Bennet Greenberg, director of government relations for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, said a new justice is unlikely to lead the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. He also said polls show that Virginians support safe, legal and rare abortions.
    "A clear majority would oppose a ban on abortions in Virginia, and [a ban] would be contrary to the will of the citizens of the state," he said.
    Measures to limit reproductive rights and restrict abortion generally have passed overwhelmingly in the House of Delegates but have been rejected by the Senate Education and Health Committee, of which Mr. Potts is chairman.
    Republicans control both chambers of the legislature.
    Observers say Mr. Potts' committee often acts as the shield for moderate senators who do not want to be on the record for or against bills that restrict abortion or birth control.
    Mr. Greenberg said the three gubernatorial candidates "reflect the full spectrum" on abortion and reproductive rights.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050711Md   Fundraiser for Steele features top Bush aide
July 11, 2005
 

One of President Bush's top aides will be the star attraction at a fundraiser in Washington later this month for Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.
    Although Mr. Steele has not publicly committed himself to run for the U.S. Senate next year, the fundraiser headlined by Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief
of staff, sends a strong signal that the lieutenant governor will be the Republican candidate.
    Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, confirmed Friday that a fundraiser with Mr. Rove and Mr. Steele will be held July
26. It will be in Washington, but Mr. Ronayne said he did not have other details.
    Mr. Steele is a consensus choice by top Maryland Republican Party leaders to be the party's senatorial nominee next year for a seat that will come open with the
retirement of Democrat Paul S. Sarbanes.
    The lieutenant governor also has been lobbied by high-ranking Republicans on the national level, who see him as the party's best chance to break a long
Democratic hold on Maryland's two Senate seats.
    "Michael has received a lot of encouragement from many people to run. Now he is obviously considering it, but he is also doing his due diligence to determine if
the things he needs for a competitive race are there," Mr. Ronayne said.
    Mr. Steele announced June 15 that he was setting up an exploratory committee to help him decide whether he will forgo running with Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
for a second term as lieutenant governor or strike out on his own.
    • Movin' on up
    ?One of the top-ranking women in Maryland's General Assembly plans to announce her candidacy for Congress this week.
    State Sen. Paula Colodny Hollinger is expected to begin her campaign Wednesday for the seat being vacated by U.S. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, who is seeking
the Democratic nomination to run for retiring U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes' seat.
    Mrs. Hollinger, a former nurse who has spent 26 years in the legislature, plans to make the announcement at the University of Maryland-Baltimore's School of
Nursing.
    The 3rd Congressional District covers portions of Baltimore city, and Howard, Baltimore and Anne Arundel counties. Mrs. Hollinger's state Senate district
includes northwest Baltimore city and central Baltimore County.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050717L   Sharing faith
    Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, responded to my July 3 Commentary column, "Combat zone for faith," by misrepresenting
the facts and making ad hominem attacks ("Faith and the military," Letters July 9).
    Mr. Foxman states that the June 22 Air Force report about the Air Force Academy confirms a climate of religious intolerance, but his assertion contradicts the
report, which states: "The HQ USAF team found a religious climate that does not involve overt religious discrimination, but a failure to fully accommodate all
members' needs."
    Evangelical Christians emphasize a relationship with Jesus Christ, which cannot be forced or coerced. Malicious acts of religious intolerance are unacceptable and
should be dealt with promptly. The report states that the academy's superintendent found some religious bias, which has been addressed.
    The Air Force investigators were charged to determine whether religious practices at the academy respect the First Amendment. Mr. Foxman's rebuttal contends
the report's recommendations do not infringe on cadets' constitutional rights. Wrong.
    The initial Air Force-wide message effectively chills religious expression, and it is not yet determined what impact the report's eight recommendations might have.
Christians have a right to share their faith -- unfettered -- which is part of the thought process behind the constitutionally protected free exercise of religion.
    Mr. Foxman claims that I endorse coercive proselytizing. Untrue. I endorse freedom of expression for people of all faiths. The ADL ought to demonstrate its
religious sensitivity about free expression by stepping in to stop truly coercive practices against Christians at other American universities.
    Secular humanists, postmodernists and purveyors of political correctness daily attack Christians who seek to share their faith in Jesus Christ.
 
    ROBERT L. MAGINNIS
    Woodbridge, Va.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050713L   Don't back away from teaching abstinence
    As a registered nurse and mother of seven, I say, "Shame on the American Academy of Pediatrics for throwing in the towel when it comes to teen abstinence."
Cheryl Wetzstein's article "Group changes tack on teen abstinence" (Nation, yesterday) is a sad notification that the AAP has caved in to the
popularmisconceptionthat teenagers are unable to control their sexual drives and should be provided with everything necessary to pursue sexual activity.
    Recommending emergency contraception before it has been thoroughly tested for teenagers is evidence of how deeply the academy members have drunk of the
liberal philosophy poured out by groups such as the Sexuality Information and EducationCounciloftheUnited States.
    WilliamSmith,vice presidentforpublicpolicyat SIECUS, is all for the AAP move.Hisorganization's "Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education:
Kindergarten Through 12th Grade" includes positive messages to children beginning at 5 years of age about masturbation, abortion and pornography.
    Everything about these guidelines is to encourage sexual activity in our children. Doctors in the AAP surely don't understand the goals of the groups with which
they have aligned and how recklessly they toss the aside the risks associated with sex in favor of promoting a variety of sexual pleasures to the young.
 
    ELLEN CASTELLANO
    Montgomery Village
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050717C   Separation of print and state
By Herb Berkowitz/Hugh Newton
July 17, 2005
 

Normally, civil libertarians and the media would be up in arms at even the slightest hint of government interference in the news business.
    This is one area that is strictly off-limits, without exception. Except the barrier already has been breached. The government is up to its armpits in the media
business. And many civil libertarians and leading media figures are cheering the government on.
    At the heart of the controversy are National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). The two broadcast networks and their affiliates
receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies each year.
    When money is involved, there is no such thing as an arms-length relationship. If you're a "little bit" pregnant, you're pregnant. And by any reasonable standard,
NPR and PBS are pregnant and the DNA originates in Washington.
    Though PBS operates under a statutory mandate to provide "balance and objectivity," both organizations have taken well-deserved lumps over the years for the
alleged "left-wing," or liberal, bias of their news programs. NPR's hallmark news-analysis program, "All Things Considered," for example, is known to many
conservatives as "Some Things Considered." PBS' penchant for propaganda disguised as "news" -- with Bill Moyers often in a prominent role -- is equally notorious.
We've been over this ground many times before.
    But the content of NPR and PBS programming shouldn't be the issue. It's only a distraction. The issue should be the source of their funds. Let PBS and NPR lean
as far to the left (or right) as they want, so long as U.S. taxpayers don't pick up the tab.
    If Washington appropriated money each year for the leftist Pacifica Radio Foundation (which supports radio stations in Berkeley, Los Angeles, Houston, New
York and Washington), or for the right-leaning Wall Street Journal or The Washington Times, the American Civil Liberties Union, Society of Professional
Journalists, National Conference of Editorial Writers, National Association of Broadcasters and Radio-Television News Directors Association, among others, would
demand an immediate halt. Universities and think tanks would convene panels to examine every possible nuance of the policy and remind us what the Founding
Fathers really meant when they penned the First Amendment. Editorial pages -- liberal, conservative and down-the-middle alike -- would denounce the incursion
into forbidden territory. Fox News Channel's talking heads would eviscerate the culprits. Congress would hold hearings. There would be no disagreement. And the
handouts would end. Not someday in the future, but immediately.
    In the case of NPR and PBS, the government already has overstepped the line. It's been going on for years. The two broadcast services consider the handouts
their due. And many of the self-proclaimed guardians of the First Amendment not only blink at the game, but openly applaud it.
    There is now only one course of action: As the separation of church and state has become axiomatic in the United States, we now need to separate press and
state.
    In the marketplace of ideas, the government should not maintain any sales stall of its own. Even if there was a perceived need for government-sponsored radio
and television when NPR and PBS were founded, technology has changed all that. Today, there isn't a household in America that has access to NPR and PBS that
doesn't also have access to a multitude of other channels and choices.
    As I write this, "public" radio and television stations around the country are lobbying their listeners and viewers to contact Congress to oppose a proposed 25
percent reduction in NPR and PBS funding.
    In a sense they're right. The NPR/PBS appropriation shouldn't be cut by $100 million, as proposed; it should be eliminated altogether. The "press" is supposed to
be free in America -- not tax supported.
 
    Herb Berkowitz and Hugh Newton are long time conservative public relations activists for more than 25 years with The Heritage Foundation and the National
Right to Work Committee.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S050716C   Priscilla Owen was right
By Terence P. Jeffrey
July 16, 2005
 

When George Bush first ran for president, he said he would name "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court, citing Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as
models.
    Now, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is being mentioned for a vacancy. But is he like Justices Scalia and Thomas?
    When In re Jane Doe, the first test of Texas' parental notification law, came to the Texas Supreme Court in 2000, then-Justice Gonzales sided against then-Justice
Priscilla Owen, whom Mr. Bush later named a federal appellate judge.
    Miss Doe, the 17-year-old daughter of pro-life parents, sought an abortion. The law required she first notify her parents unless she could secure a judicial bypass,
which the law allowed if (among other reasons) she could demonstrate she was "mature and sufficiently well-informed" to make the decision without notifying them.
    Miss Doe explained to a judge: "Well, for me I feel if I were to have the child, my parents, they would be slightly upset to actually know that I became pregnant
and they are very against abortion. ... And I don't favor the adoption. I know it could be done, but if I were to go nine months having this child, I would feel to keep
it."
    The judge decided she was not "sufficiently well-informed." An appeals court agreed. The majority of the Texas Supreme Court -- including Justice Gonzales --
also agreed.
    Yet, the court remanded the Doe case for a second hearing, because, in determining she did not merit a bypass, the court also ruled on: the standard of review
appellate courts should use in determining whether a trial court had ruled correctly on a bypass, and which factors trial courts should consider in determining whether
a teenager was "mature and sufficiently well-informed." The majority decided to give Doe another chance under the new rules it had written in these areas.
    In the first, the court said a "legal and factual sufficiency" standard applied: If there was evidence supporting the trial court's judgment, an appeal should uphold it.
    In the second, the court cited three questions the judge should weigh, including whether the teenager understood the health risks of abortion, whether "she has
given thoughtful consideration to her alternatives, including adoption and keeping the child," and whether she is "aware of the emotional and psychological aspects" of
abortion.
    Justice Owen agreed with the review standard but argued the court set a lower hurdle for "sufficiently well-informed" than the legislature intended or the U.S.
Supreme Court would allow.
    Miss Doe had a second hearing. The judge listened to her again and determined that under the new rules she still was not sufficiently well informed. The appeals
court again agreed.
    Now, the Texas Supreme Court majority, including Justice Gonzales, disagreed. It ruled Miss Doe, entering her 15th week of pregnancy, could get an abortion
without telling her parents.
    Had Miss Doe become "sufficiently well-informed" between the court's two decisions? Did no evidence support the trial judge?
    Then-Justice Greg Abbott, now Texas attorney general, argued in dissent that the court's "analysis and conclusions depart from the true intent of the Legislature."
He cited a brief filed by 56 Texas legislators, including the law's sponsors. It said: "In order to achieve the legislative goal, it is important that a minor be required to
show that she has received information from a disinterested and reliable health-care provider who is not involved in abortion advocacy ... or that she has received
information from multiple sources, at least one of which expresses a preference for childbirth over abortion."
    "Prior to the hearing on remand," Justice Nathan Hecht noted in dissent, "Doe returned to Planned Parenthood and spoke with an unlicensed counselor for about
11/2 hours and with a physician for about 15 minutes. ... The only other person she talked with after the first hearing was a teacher at school who counsels pregnant
students."
    In a concurrence, Justice Gonzales wrote, "... there is no evidence supporting the trial court's finding that Jane Doe was not sufficiently well informed."
    Justice Owen issued a scorching dissent. "Doe affirmatively avoided counseling from any source who might cause her to seriously examine her decision in a
meaningful way, as notifying one of her parents may have caused her to do," she said.
    "The question in this case is not whether this court would have ruled differently when confronted with all the evidence that the trial court heard," said Justice Owen.
"The question is whether legally sufficient evidence supports the trial court's judgment. The answer to this latter question is yes. Longstanding principles of appellate
review and our Texas Constitution do no permit this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court and or to ignore the evidence, as it has done."
    Would the next Justice Scalia or Thomas have concurred with Alberto Gonzales? Not a chance.
 
    Terence P. Jeffrey is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S050715C   The 'growth' of a justice
By Paul Rosenzweig
July 15, 2005
 

Perhaps Sen. Charles Schumer should have taken the Quiet Car. Here's what the New York Democrat reportedly was overheard saying the other day on Amtrak:
"Even William Rehnquist is more moderate than they expected. The only one that resulted how they predicted [was] Scalia. So most of the time they've gotten their
picks wrong, and that's what we want to do to them again."
    Whether or not this quote from the Drudge Report is accurate, the sentiment is correct: The litany of conservative disappointments over Supreme Court
appointments is long. Earl Warren. Harry Blackmun. John Paul Stevens. Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor, at least sometimes. David Souter (all of the
time). Dwight Eisenhower once said appointing Justice William Brennan was the biggest mistake of his presidency.
    Why is that? Why do supposedly conservative justices so frequently disappoint the presidents who appoint them? And why is this disappointment so often a
one-way ratchet, at least in modern times? After all, you rarely hear liberals complain about Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
    Some of our liberal friends might say, perhaps jokingly, that certain conservative justices have changed their leanings because they found wisdom and learned the
error of their ways.
    Those looking for a more plausible answer need to look deeper. Justices change their views because they are people, and, at the core, people want to fit in. They
want to be respected and liked by those whose opinions they value. Supreme Court justices come to Washington from around the country -- Arizona, Illinois, New
Hampshire, etc. -- and soon are immersed in, indeed overwhelmed by, the sea of Washington elites.
    And let's be honest, today in Washington the elite norm is broadly liberal. Since the 1950s, America's major institutions -- the media, the world of arts and letters,
the academy and the legal profession -- have become increasingly liberal. So if you want to fit in, in Washington, you usually fit in as a liberal.
    The phenomenon is so common that frustrated conservatives even have a name for it. They call it the "Greenhouse Effect," named after the New York Times'
influential court reporter, Linda Greenhouse, whose favorable coverage represents the mark of social acceptance in elite circles.
    Mr. Schumer instinctively understands there are really two types of conservatives. Some, like Sandra Day O'Connor, are conservative on particular issues, such
as property rights. Their conservatism flows from cultural predilection. Others, though -- Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas come most readily to mind -- are
philosophical conservatives, committed to interpreting the Constitution as written and resistant to the "politically correct" orthodoxy.
    And that, at its core, is why conservatives are so focused on the next Supreme Court nominee: They know only one type of conservative can resist the siren call
of the Greenhouse Effect. They trust only conservatives of principle, those who have shown they can remain principled despite expediency. Conservatives like
Justice O'Connor, who are conservative by instinct alone without an underlying philosophy, often "grow" on the bench, to conservative consternation.
    That's why conservatives want President Bush to nominate someone in the Scalia or Thomas mold. Conservatives have got their picks wrong before, and liberals
want them to do it again.
    You'll probably know who has carried the day as soon as the president names his selection. If it's an "instinctive" conservative, liberals will, once again, have lost
the battle (when the nominee is confirmed) and won the war (when he or she "grows"). It takes only a little time in the nation's capital for the Greenhouse Effect to
work its magic.
 
    Paul Rosenzweig is a senior legal research fellow in the Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050714C   Political direction signals
By Donald Lambro
July 14, 2005
 

Anyone who wants to know where American politics is headed should look at the U.S. Census Bureau's eye-popping population shift projections for the next three
decades.
    In a nutshell, it forecasts that Americans will continue moving out of the liberal bastions of the Northeast and Midwest and into the Sun Belt states in the South and
West. That, in turn, will boost Republican congressional and electoral clout and further erode the Democratic political base.
    Republicans have refastened their electoral lock on the South and the Western Plains and Mountain states, while Democrats have lost electoral strength in
Northeastern and Midwestern states. The reason: many more Americans are moving to places like Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Arizona and Nevada --
conservative-leaning states the GOP has carried with increasing regularity over the last several decades.
    The Census Bureau's Interim Population Projections, its first in eight years, shows this political migration will not only continue but will accelerate over the next 30
years.
    So much so that heavily Democratic Michigan and New Jersey will be replaced on the list of the 10 most populated states by heavily Republican and fast-growing
Arizona and North Carolina. Ohio, a pivotal swing state in presidential races, will fall from seventh to 10th place in population, and Republican-rich Georgia will
move from 10th to eighth.
    A bigger seismic shift: Heavily Republican Florida will become the third most populous state, surpassing Democratic New York, which will fall into fourth place
perhaps as early as 2011.
    "The net beneficiary of this will continue to be the Republican Party because the population shift is moving into an environment that is heavily dominated by the
Republicans," says Merle Black, Emory University professor of politics and government and co-author of seminal books on the South's political realignment.
    This doesn't mean Democrats cannot win Southern states with the right candidate -- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton proved that. But absent an appealing Southern
Democrat, the political rise of the Sun Belt gives the GOP "a long-term structural advantage and assuming they nominate credible candidates, they start with a strong
base," Mr. Black says. The census reinforces his belief "the Republicans will continue to be the dominant party in the South for the foreseeable future."
    Migration from the Snow Belt industrial North to the South and West has been under way several decades, but the political effects reached a new milestone in the
last three years.
    "In the 2002 and 2004 exit polls, we saw for the first time a majority of Southern white voters identifying themselves as Republicans, and Democratic identification
falling to a low 20 [percent] to 25 percent," Mr. Black says.
    It didn't happen all at once, but the two driving forces for this change were Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. "Southern whites [who identified themselves as
Republicans] began to be a plurality in the 1980s during the Reagan years," Mr. Black says. What we're seeing now "is a Bush surge because Bush has been a very
popular president in the South."
    This political erosion has cut the Democrats' once-mighty dominance in the South to the bone and it will only get worse, the latest census forecasts suggest.
    The share of Americans living in the Northeast and Midwest will plunge from 42 percent to 35 percent, while the percentage in the South and West will rise from
58 percent to 65 percent.
    There are some who doubt this migration will strengthen the GOP electoral lock in the Sun Belt. They see this migration further diversifying the South and West,
socially and politically.
    "The people moving to the Carolinas are from the blue [Democratic] states to a large degree," says William H. Frey, a Brookings Institution political
demographer. "They are coming from the Midwest, from New Jersey and New York, and they are going to bring with them certainly Southern fiscal values but also
maybe Northern social values," he told me.
    Florida, a state of regional transplants, in particular will turn into much more socially diverse battleground, Mr. Frey says. "They are getting younger, more
mainstream suburbanites from the Northeast in Orlando and Tampa, but also more diverse minority immigrant populations, all of which are different from the Florida
we've seen in the past," he says.
    But Mr. Black says this will not diminish the generational values of the South's native population, which is more hard-core conservative than ever.
    "If you look at younger white voters in the South, they are even more Republican than the older white voters. As these younger white voters age, they are going to
be even more cohesively Republican than their predecessors," he says. That, he thinks, will block any political liberalization of the South in the foreseeable future.
    In American politics, of course, hope springs eternal. But these Census forecasts suggest the red states will only get redder.
 
    Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S050712C   Too important for mediocrity
By Bruce Fein
July 12, 2005
 

The U.S. Supreme Court is too important for mediocrities. The justices chronically write ill-reasoned opinions that sow rather than dispel confusion. Insipid minds
incline toward major constitutional blunders.
    Justice Henry Brown pronounced the "separate but equal" doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896); Justice Rufus Peckham embraced free enterprise and Herbert
Spencer's Social Statics as constitutional mandates in Lochner v. New York (1905); Chief Justice William Howard Taft declared wiretapping and electronic
surveillance outside the limits of the Fourth Amendment in Olmstead v. United States (1928); and Justice Harry Blackmun summoned into being a constitutional right
to abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973).
    President George W. Bush should thus resist the personal temptation to appoint Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as opposed to trenchant legal thinkers to the
Supreme Court. That resistance should be fortified by the outlandish opinion of Justice David Souter, appointed by President Bush's father, holding unconstitutional
the posting of the Ten Commandments in two county courthouses in McCreary County Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (June 27, 2005).
    Both Mr. Gonzalez and Justice Souter inhabit a mediocre intellectual universe. Thus, the former could be expected to author opinions that smack of McCreary
County.
    The First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting laws "respecting an establishment of religion," such as erecting a national church or punishing recusancy or
heresy. The establishment clause does not forbid official acknowledgments of religion or God, as in the Declaration of Independence or in Thanksgiving
Proclamations issued by various presidents. Further, the Congress that endorsed the Bill of Rights provided for legislative prayer, a practice that endorsed religion
yet was sustained in Marsh v. Chambers (1983).
    The establishment clause did not create a "heckler's veto" right to silence any noncoercive official recognition of God to avoid anxieties in nonbelievers. Indeed,
the First Amendment's protection of free speech and freedom of religion contemplate confronting citizens with differing or infuriating expression.
    As the Supreme Court elaborated in Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), free speech "may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling
effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea." The government itself speaks every day in ways that please some but anger others. Citizens in a democracy should
expect to tolerate opposing ideas or creeds without psychological trauma or distress.
    Justice Souter preposterously concluded in McCreary County that a passive display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse violated the establishment clause
because the posting's predominant purpose was religious, not secular. Accordingly, nonbelievers who viewed the Commandments might have felt psychologically
alienated or distraught.
    Assembled with the Commandments were framed copies of the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the lyrics of " The Star
Spangled Banner," the Mayflower Compact, the National Motto, the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution and a portrait of Lady Justice. The collection of the
nine documents was titled "The Foundations of American Law and Government Display." No codicil to the Commandments instructed viewers to choose between
obedience and damnation.
    Two previous Commandment postings were withdrawn because their purpose was transparently religious. The Pulaski County Judge-Executive, for example,
presided over a ceremony to commemorate the initial posting accompanied by the pastor of his church. The latter acclaimed the Commandments display as "one of
the greatest things the judge could have done to close out the millennium." Justice Souter insisted the earlier illicit constitutional motivations, like original sin,
condemned any later county efforts at redemption through a posting substantially calculated to educate rather than proselytize. In any event, he maintained, an
educational purpose was bogus because the nine-document display and commentary were scholastically suboptimal, for example, omitting the Fourteenth
Amendment and failing to recognize government by the consent of the governed as the yardstick for legitimacy celebrated in the Declaration of Independence.
    Government officials, however, customarily act from multiple motivations. Religious and educational purposes may converge in a display of the Commandments.
Although the associate justice protested: "[W]e do not decide that the counties' past actions forever taint any effort on their part to deal with the subject matter," he
was clueless as to how the local governments could escape constitutional purgatory.
    Justice Souter asserted political divisiveness along religious lines was the cardinal establishment clause evil. But in finding an illicit purpose or endorsement of
religion in displaying a religious text, the justice projected the likely reaction of a nonexistent hypothetical person omniscient about every historical and contextual
detail of the government decision. But imaginary people do not start religious brawls or altercations.
    Justice Souter lectured that the establishment clause is informed by "the principle of neutrality," i.e., government may not favor one religion over another, or religion
over irreligion. But he is wrong. Legislative prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the National Motto all favor religion over irreligion and theistic over nontheistic
creeds.
    Requiring opposition to all wars as a condition for treating a citizen a conscientious objector favors some religions over others. In sum, his neutrality principle
means whatever he wants it to mean, a standard fitting for "Alice in Wonderland" but not for the Supreme Court.
    If President Bush appoints Mr. Gonzalez, the conservative protest of "No more Souters" will be mocked.
 
    Bruce Fein is a constitutional attorney and international consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and the Lichfield Group. He has prepared an "Advice & Consent
Handbook" on Supreme Court appointments and the judicial filibuster.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S050711C   Justice juggling
By Donald Lambro
July 11, 2005
 

The prenomination battle over who President Bush should name to the Supreme Court contains enough irony and internal political warfare to fill a Tolstoy novel.
    Initially, the story leading up to Mr. Bush's first nomination to that court was expected to be an all-out war by liberal Democrats who know the next Republican
appointment will push the nine-judge panel in a decidedly conservative direction. Indeed, Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, was overheard on an Amtrak
Metroliner last week saying he and his liberal allies were preparing "to go to war" to block whomever Mr. Bush chooses.
    Surprisingly, while Mr. Schumer and an army of angry activists beat their war drums, other Democratic liberals urged their party to hold their fire until they know
who will be the nominee. More surprisingly, the Senate's No. 1 Democrat seemed to be all but endorsing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
    Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a leader of the Senate Democrats' liberal bloc, who has been fighting Mr. Bush's judicial nominees for the past 4? years, suddenly
was urging fellow liberals to cool it for now and tone down their rhetoric.
    And Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said he thinks Mr. Gonzales "is qualified" to sit on the court. "He's attorney general of the United States and a former
Texas judge." Mr. Reid, of course, voted against Mr. Gonzales to run the Justice Department, but apparently he now thinks the Supreme Court is different matter --
especially after millions of Hispanic voters supported Mr. Bush over Democrat John Kerry last year.
    But there was even more division over on the Republican side, where the GOP's powerful social conservative armies were up in arms over the thought of George
W. Bush putting Mr. Gonzales -- his longtime friend, political ally and confidante -- on the highest court in the land.
    Mr. Gonzales is essentially a very conservative guy. He and Mr. Bush are joined at the hip in their intense opposition to judges who like to legislate from the
bench. He is as tough as can be on national security issues and proved it in his post-September 11, 2001, memoranda on how to deal with the terrorist threat.
    On social, especially right-to-life, issues no president has been tougher or more effective than Mr. Bush in advancing the pro-life agenda, from supporting a
partial-birth abortion ban to opposing cloned stem-cell research. Alberto Gonzales personally opposes abortion.
    But social conservatives fear Mr. Gonzales is a little soft on right-to-life issues, though they can't point to any written judicial decisions to suggest he would
overturn Roe v. Wade, a ruling his predecessor, John Ashcroft -- a hero in the social conservative movement -- said was "settled law."
    However, they do point to a 2000 abortion case opinion he wrote when on the Texas high court, a decision that overturned a lower court ruling in which a
teenage girl sought a waiver from the state's parental-notification law.
    Ironically, Mr. Gonzales based his opinion in the case on his belief he could not rewrite the law to suit his own views. In his opinion, he said "to construe the
Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an
unconscionable act of judicial activism."
    "I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the Legislature has elected not to do so," he said.
   Most bothersome for social conservatives was Mr. Gonzales' answer at a conservative forum last year where he was asked if existing legal precedent would
prevail in reconsidering the 1973 landmark case that established abortion rights. He said "yes."
    Right now, Mr. Gonzales is on Mr. Bush's short list, no doubt about it. If chosen, Mr. Gonzales would be the first Hispanic jurist named to the court, a move that
could help the Republicans make even deeper inroads among Hispanic voters. Mr. Bush won a little more than 40 percent of their vote last year. Karl Rove thinks
the GOP can push that number even higher by reaching out to this huge and growing voting bloc -- which is overwhelmingly pro-life, by the way.
    But has the intense opposition from social conservatives killed any and all chances Mr. Bush will still nominate this once dirt-poor son of Mexican immigrants?
Ironically, their opposition may have strengthened Mr. Gonzales' position all the more. Mr. Bush sent that signal last week: "All of a sudden this fellow, who is a
good person, is under fire. I don't like it at all."
    His robust defense of Mr. Gonzales has put many top social conservatives in a very tough position where some may sit this one out. "I can't support him because
of my constituency, and I can't oppose him because I can't hurt this presidency," social conservative leader Paul Weyrich said last week.
    Stay tuned.
 
    Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050714   Falwell college seeks funds
July 14, 2005
 

RICHMOND (AP) -- A Christian college founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell wants to raise a $1 billion endowment, an ambitious move for a school with a small
endowment at present, but a growing alumni base.
    The drive promises to stretch the fundraising limits of Liberty University, which Mr. Falwell started in Lynchburg 34 years ago.
    "We will need the blessing of God to be successful in this," Mr. Falwell said Tuesday. "At the same time, we are quite confident that in the next 15 years, we will
be successful."
    The cash would generate income providing at least $50 million annually in financial aid for students, Mr. Falwell said. Any additional income would go toward
operations.
    Forty-seven schools nationwide have $1 billion-plus endowments. Regent University in Virginia Beach, by comparison, has a $247 million endowment, said
officials at the school founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.
    The Liberty drive coincides with a push to increase the 8,453-strong student body to 25,000 in the next 15 years.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050713   Defending the Scouts
By Amy Doolittle
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 13, 2005
 

The Boy Scout motto "be prepared" now means more than building campfires and learning first aid. For Hans Zeiger, being prepared in the 21st century means
defending the organizational honor of the Boy Scouts of America.
    The 19-year-old Scout has made preserving the Boy Scout Oath and Law his personal battle. Honor, he says, is essentially what the Boy Scouts are all about.
    "The Boy Scouts are an institution of honor that serve to connect young men to things higher than themselves, such as God and country and the ideals of service
and duty," Mr. Zeiger said. "It's a good organization, and one that has contributed so much to America and one that teaches self-government, without which we can't
have constitutional government."
    An Eagle Scout from Puyallup, Wash., who now works as an assistant troop leader, he began writing his new book, "Get Off My Honor: The Assault on the Boy
Scouts of America," when he was 16.
    Left-wing groups, he says, are doing more than attacking ideas by "assaulting" the Boy Scouts' belief system -- they are attacking the honor and character of the
members of the organization.
    The Boy Scouts hold to a strict code, embodied in the Scout Oath. The oath reads: "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to
obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."
    It is that oath, and therefore honor, that Mr. Zeiger, a student at Hillsdale College in Michigan, attempts to defend through his book.
    "Scouts' honor is under attack in American culture," Mr. Zeiger writes. "Honor, 'the foundation of all character,' has been nearly forgotten by a generation of
Americans who, as products of a morally relativistic culture, care more about serving themselves than about their obligations to the community, the nation and the
world. Character itself has gone by the wayside."
    In Mr. Zeiger's estimation -- and in the view of most of the Boy Scouts of America -- it is the honor, not the "intolerance," of the Scouts that is at issue in the
battles over the policies excluding homosexuals and atheists from the organization's ranks.
    The Boy Scouts maintain that they are not exclusionary -- they say homosexuals and atheists exclude themselves by identifying with groups and agendas not
compatible with Boy Scout values and ethos.
    The Boy Scouts' public proclamation, Mr. Zeiger said, is nothing more than a statement about the groups' purposeful self-exclusion as being necessary to the
organization's code.
    "Their membership standards and the issue of honor suggests that only certain people are going to live up to that code, and there are others that are going to
choose not to," Mr. Zeiger said.
   Homosexuals are excluded from the Boy Scout ranks because they hold values that are harmful to American society, Mr. Zeiger said.
    "Regardless of what leads to homosexuality, it is a thing that has an agenda in our society and is very harmful to the traditional family and is causing a tremendous
amount of harm to young men," he said. "The Boy Scouts are one of the few organizations that have the moral sense to stand against the homosexual agenda, and it's
an agenda that's quite different. It's definitely highly political and is accompanied by an entire body of moral relativism."
    After lengthy court battles in the past several years, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts can ban homosexual troop leaders, saying that
because the organization is a private institution it has a right to exclude whoever it chooses to.
    "The Supreme Court affirmed our First Amendment right to gather peaceably," said Greg Shields, a spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, headquartered in
Irving, Texas. "We simply feel that a homosexual is not a role model that we would choose for leadership, and you have to be a member to be a leader in Boy
Scouts. It's that simple, and it's always been that way."
    Much of the battle over the Boy Scouts' rights as a private institution stems from the group's use of public buildings, says Madhavi Sunder, a professor of law at
the University of California at Davis School of Law.
    "The Boy Scouts fought for their right to exclude; now, other people are exercising their right to exclude them [from using public buildings] because they have
different values," Miss Sunder said. "It's the classic case of calling the kettle black. Boy Scouts told young gay kids that they are not fit to be associated with, and the
Boy Scouts are now being told that they aren't fit to be associated with."
    But the Boy Scouts maintain that they always have been a private institution and that recent criticism over their membership policies should not affect whether they
are allowed to use public buildings.
    "We respect other people's opinions -- we would simply ask them to have tolerance for our values." Mr. Shields said. "We can hold our heads up and do what
we are about. The court has given us the right to do that, and we are going to continue to succeed."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050713C   Getting better
    "Is Hollywood, long a liberal town, becoming more of a conservative town? People here have been asking this for years, but it kind of begs the question. More
than anything, Hollywood is a deeply hypocritical town -- a place where, as conservative screenwriter Lionel Chetwynd has long maintained, 'the liberalism stops at
the studio gates.' ...
    "Hollywood's famous liberalism is less a carefully considered political point of view than a vague policy of cultural feel-goodism. A disapproving phrase you get
called a lot here if you're conservative is 'mean-spirited.' Maybe that's because actors typically want to find the nice side of even villainous characters. ...
    "'Things are getting better,' [Mr. Chetwynd] said. 'It used to be that terrorists in movies and TV shows all had to be neo-Nazis. This year on "24," not only are
there Middle Eastern terrorists, the second enemy are the Chinese.'"
    --Catherine Seipp, writing on "Out and About," Tuesday in National Review Online at www.nationalreview.com
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050715C     Science and faith
    "I do believe in evolution. ...
    "If intelligent design means that evolution occurs under some divine guidance, I believe that. ...
    "I don't believe that anything that offends nine-tenths of the American public should be taught in public schools. ... Christianity is the faith of nine-tenths of the
American public. ... I don't believe that public schools should embark on teaching anything that offends Christian principle."
    -- David Frum, former White House speechwriter, interviewed by Ben Adler on July 7 in New Republic Online at www.tnr.com
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv