On the heels of the recent Bush appointment of Massachusetts pro-"gay rights" Gov. Paul Cellucci to the post of U.S. Ambassador to Canada, White House officials announced on Monday the appointment of Scott Evertz, the openly-homosexual head of the Wisconsin Log Cabin Republicans, as director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy.
There is a serious problem with the logic of this appointment. The greatest factor contributing to the increasing incidence of AIDS is the view that human sexuality is not subject to moral choice. What sense does it make to appoint to a position of national leadership in the fight against AIDS an unabashed promoter of this morally debilitating view?
President Bush would have shown greater compassion for AIDS sufferers and their families by appointing someone who would challenge the prevailing lies about the disease, rather than someone who legitimizes them. The Bush administration should have looked for the most effective advocate of abstinence and self-control available, to use the position as a platform for the kind of moral education that is the only effective antidote against the irresponsible behavior intensifying this global tragedy.
The fact that Bush did not do so is a further confirmation that little or no understanding of moral principle is motivating personnel decisions in the Bush White House. This emerging pattern of appointments forces us to consider the real possibility that even Bush's correct decisions, such as renewing the pro-life policy to deny American-aid money to international organizations that support abortion, are themselves just part of an overall strategy of the politics of pandering.
The president needs to realize that he cannot deal with policy questions of high moral importance as if the only thing at stake is the artful construction of a political coalition including -- and neutralizing -- citizens with fundamentally opposed moral principles. He needs, instead, to start making real choices, based on real moral principles, and take his political chances with the broad coalition of Americans who endorse moral principle and who will support such a course. America needs a president whose highest priority is the good of the country -- and who discerns that good as the result of reasoning from moral principle, not political calculation.
Let's take a closer look at the moral incoherence of the Evertz appointment, and the real human damage that it will leave in its wake. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Evertz said that he was pleased to be the first "openly gay" appointee in a Republican administration. Now he will take control of an AIDS office which the Bush administration, under pressure from the radical homosexual lobby, has agreed to expand to levels not surpassed even by the Clinton administration.
The battle against AIDS requires, among other things, modification of the behavior that spreads the disease. But this behavior is validated by the implausible account that underlies the whole promotion of homosexuality: That whether human sexual behavior is rooted in our common nature or our genetic diversity -- or in some other mechanism -- we cannot finally control what we do. This view means that our response to the promptings of our passions, of our animal or physical nature, cannot include what used to be called sexual responsibility. The modification of our sexual behavior, in this view, is not within the grasp of human choice and discipline.
Promoting to visible platforms of authority those who actually represent the undermining of our understanding of our moral capacity -- an understanding which is required if we are to sustain moral responsibility -- would be a grave error for any administration. It is particularly disappointing to see such decisions emerge from an administration that has encouraged the hope that it would be a champion of renewed concern about the moral condition and future of the country.
Is this the moral leadership Republicans want to present to America? Is this the moral leadership America wants to present to the world? It looks more like moral capitulation than moral leadership.
Close to 40 Arab/Islamamic and anti-Israel terrorist groups are coming together at a gathering of hate in Tehran Iran. You know that Hizballah and Hamas have joined forces and co-operate with Islamic Jihad as well. Arafat is going and it is known also that these groups are opposed to any peace process, so they meet to encourage terrorism activity. A step up of such activity is in line with previous arab summits which come away advocating the destruction of the state of Israel. Do you think that Prime Minister Sharon does'nt know that the PA and Arafat are responsible for the recent bombing incidents in Israel. There are reports that Saudi bin Laden and Arafat have joined forces for a joint terrorist attack against Israel. The host country (Iran) is also known for its leaders words, that: "combat, not dialogue is the only language Israel understands.
These anti-Israel terrorist groups are well known. Hizballah and Hamas have co-0perated with each other for some time now and it should be no surprise to anyone to find out that there is a connection with Islamic Jihad also. bin Laden is active in the area as well and has tentacles reaching out to other clandestine operations touching other terrorist activity throughout the region.
