First, President Bush has made a categorical statement about good and evil, somewhat akin to Reagan's distinction of the USSR as an "evil empire." As with Reagan, Bush is making an ethical statement--there is such a thing as evil in this world and these terrorist states are a good place to begin thinking about evil. As Michael Novak has argued, "After years and years of substituting therapeutic language for moral language, "well" for "good," "ill" for "evil," Americans seem sick of therapy. They long for good old- fashioned "evil." Looking at the hole where the World Trade Center stood, they see-- evil." The moral framework of discussion has changed. There is evil in the world.

President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and challenged the relativist who has denied the existence of absolutes. It is time someone did so. The danger is that we Americans will define ourselves as righteous; we are not. As with all humans, we need to be reminded that we too can do horrendous evil. Our nation's Founders understood this reality and established a system of checks and balances, a separation of power. Our president has brought us back to our Founders, who understood the human condition and who understood we must check evil or it will destroy us. The United States is not more righteous than the terrorists but the United States now understands that it must destroy evil or it will destroy us. Not too many other nations seem to have grasped this.

(See Michael Novak's brilliant essay in the Wall Street Journal [7 February 2002].)

Second, the threat of these three is real. Saddam Hussein is known to be working on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. He is likewise rebuilding his missile industry. Although he has a wretched history of supporting terrorism, he seems to have backed away from supporting terrorism outright. Regarding Iran, Tehran has actively supported terrorist groups, such as Hamas. It too is working on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missile technology. The reality is that Iran hates and distrusts Iraq and such weapons could be used against Iraq. But they could also be used against Israel or other nations.

Finally, as regards North Korea, the CIA believes that North Korea has enough material to make one or two nuclear weapons. Further, it has about 50 missiles capable of carrying nerve gas to Seoul, South Korea's capital. Also, North Korea exports missiles and other weapons to other parts of the world, including Pakistan. The threat of these three countries is real and it is evil. How the United States will confront these three nations and how it will neutralize their real threat is an enigma.

But the President has defined reality and that is what makes this so difficult. At the core of this debate lies a deeper question about American policy that the Clinton administration never resolved and now is the focal point of Bush's statements: Is American stronger when it acts in an unrestrained manner and defends its national interests directly, or when it acts with allies whose interests may frustrate America's goals? This issue is by no means settled.

See Newsweek (11 February 2002), pp. 26-27.

Back to top

THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA REVISITED

The American Academy of Pediatrics last week endorsed homosexual adoptions. Although a major victory, the AAP ignored the overwhelming evidence that the children of such relationships are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior and suffer serious mental disorders for life. This was a decision based on ideology, not science.

Last week, as well, the board of directors of the National Education Association adopted a plan calling on all school districts to develop "factual materials for classroom discussions on homosexuality." The information, according to the NEA, should be "age appropriate, nonjudgmental, and relevant to the subject matter being studied." This means that even young children will be exposed to this material.

The United States Students Association recently called for all universities and colleges to install "gender neutral" restrooms in order to accommodate transgender students (i.e., those who act and dress as members of the opposite sex but who have not yet had surgery).

Finally, in Connecticut, two bills have been introduced in the General Assembly. One would permit Vermont-style civil unions and the second would actually allow same-sex marriages.

A different but related issue is the matter of "hate crimes" against homosexuals. A study released by the US Justice Department shows a veritable epidemic of violence between homosexuals -- far greater than anti-gay "hate crimes." From 1993 to 1997, the study found an annual average of 13,740 male victims of violence by homosexual partners and 16,900 victims of lesbian partners. By contrast, the Justice Department's most recent (1999) numbers for hate crimes based on sexual orientation totaled just 1,317 incidents affecting 1,558 victims. Only a tiny fraction of those crimes were violent offenses; there were three murders and 180 aggravated assaults. "People engaged in homosexuality are in more danger from their own partners than from so-called hate crimes." This report is insightful and telling: Homosexuality is dangerous!

See Citizen (January 2002), p. 8 and "End of the Day" (12 February 2002).

Back to top

JUDGE CHARLES W. PICKERING

President Bush has nominated Judge Charles W. Pickering to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. His nomination is the first contentious judicial battle of the Bush administration. For his opponents in the Senate he is the personification of white Mississippi's oppressive past; a man hostile to civil rights and black progress. Is this true?

He is from Laurel, Mississippi and in his town, far from the bitterness of partisan politics, he is admired and loved by this largely black community. Blacks in the town admire his efforts at racial reconciliation, which they describe as highly unusual for a white Republican state. Among those who know him, here is a man who helped set up after-school youth programs and directed federal money to medical clinics in low-income areas when he was a state senator. Black business leaders say he was influential in persuading white-owned banks to lend money to black entrepreneurs, helping to strengthen the city's black middle class. A former head of the Mississippi NAACP, Thaddeus Edmonson argues, "I can't believe the man they're describing in Washington is the same one I've known for years."

For this reason, the judge's widespread popularity in his hometown has been frustrating to the many civil rights and abortion rights groups that have worked to portray him as an ideological relic of the Old South. He is not!!

Further, Judge Pickering, in private law practice in the 1980s, was one of the several white city leaders who argued that the city could not attract economic development with an effectively segregated school system. What the black leaders of Mississippi are saying is that Pickering has moved. His journey is also a journey of faith. He is a strong man of faith and his faith is what has caused him to change and become an advocate for blacks and their community in Laurel, Mississippi.

Judge Charles W. Pickering is a victim of a rank and raw liberalism that pervades so much of the judicial nomination process. The ACLU, the People for the American Way, and other groups are unfairly labeling Judge Pickering and destroying a man of integrity and honor. His nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is a taste of what will come when President Bush brings other nominations to the Senate, especially when he makes appointments to the Supreme Court. The liberal establishment has declared war on the Bush nominations and Judge Pickering is a taste of much more to come. This is not fair or just. This is pure, rank ideology over fairness and that is not what the nomination process should be.

See the very helpful article by David Firestone in The New York Times (17 February 2002).

Back to top