We missed you, Mr. Gore, but we did just fine anyway

By Cathleen Farrell *

World renowned scientists, business leaders, politicians and academics gathered at the Miami Museum of Science and Planetarium recently to discuss the environment but despite the level of expertise of the group and the topicality of the theme, the biggest news was a non-event: the last minute cancellation of Al Gore, the celebrated lay environmentalist.

The PODER Green Forum was a year in the planning and we had booked the former Vice President as our keynote speaker, to wrap-up the day-long event. However, at almost the 11th hour, Gore let forum organizers know he would not share a stage with President Alvaro Uribe—who was to introduce the former VP—citing allegations made by Uribe’s political opponents that the Colombian president had ties to paramilitary groups.

Despite Gore’s absence, the Green Forum became exactly what it was billed: an unprecedented gathering of Latino and Latin American leaders to discuss ways to achieve sustainable development. Our roster of experts—scientists, oceanographers, policy makers, industry leaders—and dedicated partners, such as the National Geographic Society, Georgetown and Columbia universities, Miami Dade College, Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), participated in presentations and panel discussions on climate change, access to natural resources, the state of our oceans, and energy and power alternatives.

The Natural Resources Defense Council measured emissions so that our event would be “carbon neutral”. NRDC worked diligently with our vendors and suppliers, tracking such sundry details as the type of toilet paper the venue was using to more complex calculations of emissions from flights of forum participants who came from Europe and throughout the Americas. In turn, PODER had agreed to pay a carbon offset fee for the emissions generated by our event. “We’re impressed by PODER’s commitment,” the NRDC’s Adrianna Quintero told me.

Our co-host, Miami Mayor Manuel Diaz— who last year was cited by Vanity Fair as one of our nation’s “green mayors”—led a lively discussion of his peers: Bill White, mayor of Houston; Juan Carlos Navarro, mayor of Panama City; Nancy Sutley, Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles; Jose Fogaca of Porto Alegre, and crowd-pleaser Jaime Lerner, the former mayor of Curitiba. As mayor of that Brazilian city in the 1990s, Lerner revamped Curitiba’s public transportation, increased green space and parks, and introduced a “trash for cash” recycling program.

Mexico’s Environment Minister, Juan Elvira Quesada and Colombia’s Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos each gave presentations, with the latter speaking on “ecocide”, the damage to the environment perpetrated by outlaw forces, namely the FARC and ELN.

Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynne Scarlett ably, but controversially, defended the administration’s record on the environment, and oceanographer Sylvia Earle got a standing ovation from the crowd when she made an impassioned plea to clean up our oceans and protect marine life.

Late in the afternoon, President Alvaro Uribe entered the planetarium, led by ex-Chilean President Ricardo Lagos and Mayor Diaz. Introduced by Colombian starlet Sofia Vergara – who playfully pecked him on the cheek – Uribe took the stage and spoke, in English, acknowledging the elephant NOT in the room, saying, “ I deplore the cancellation of Al Gore”, and then went on to unveil an ambitious plan to develop alternative energy with crops that might replace coca in many areas of the country.

While the organizers of the PODER Green Forum were disappointed by the no-show, it would be incorrect – and insulting to our speakers and participants – to say that this ruined the event. Ultimately, Gore’s absence only generated news and distracted from what really took place during our Forum.

* The author is editor of the U.S. edition of PODER and is editorial director of the PODER Forum.

Sr Gore, lo extranamos pero nos fue muy bien

Sr. Gore lo extrañamos pero nos fue muy bien
OPINIÓN - 05/03/2007
Cathleen Farrell


Científicos de renombre mundial, líderes industriales, políticos y académicos se reunieron recientemente en el Miami Museum of Science and Planetarium, para discutir acerca del medio ambiente, pero a pesar del nivel de experticia del grupo y de la relevancia del tema, la noticia más importante no estaba relacionada con el: la cancelación a último minuto de la participación de Al Gore, el célebre ambientalista aficionado.
El PODER Green Forum tardó un año en su planeación. Sin embargo,Gore le hizo saber a los organizadores que no compartiría el escenario con el Presidente Álvaro Uribe —quien presentaría al ex Vicepresidente— citando alegatos realizados por los opositores políticos de Uribe, donde acusan al presidente Colombiano de tener vínculos con los grupos paramilitares.

A pesar de la ausencia de Gore, el Green Forum cumplió su cometido: una reunión sin precedentes históricos de la congregación de líderes latinos y Latinoamericanos, para discutir diferentes maneras para lograr un desarrollo sostenido. Científicos, oceanógrafos, legisladores, líderes industriales y patrocinadores participaron en paneles de discusión acerca del cambio climático, acceso a los recursos naturales, el estado de nuestros océanos y alternativas energéticas.

El Natural Resources Defense Council (Consejo para la Defensa de los Recursos Naturales) midió el nivel de emisiones para garantizar que nuestro evento obtuviera una calificación de “neutral en términos de carbono”. Por su lado, PODER accedió a pagar por su cuota de emisiones de carbono generadas por nuestro evento.

Nuestro co-anfitrión, Manuel Díaz, el alcalde de Miami, moderó una emocionante discusión con sus colegas, incluyendo Jaime Lerner, el exalcalde de Curitiba. Como alcalde de esa ciudad de Brasil en los ‘90as, Lerner mejoró el transporte público de Curitiba y aumentó el número de parques y espacio verde.

La secretaria adjunto del interior, Lynn Scarlett, defendió los resultados obtenidos por la administración en cuanto se refiere al medio ambiente y la oceanógrafa Sylvia Earle recibió de parte del público presente un fuerte aplauso cuando efectuó un llamado para que limpiemos nuestros océanos.

Al finalizar la tarde, el Presidente Álvaro Uribe entró al planetario. Uribe se hizo cargo del escenario y habló, en inglés, haciendo referencia al elefante que NO estaba en el recinto, diciendo: “Deploro la cancelación por parte de Al Gore”, y procedió a presentar un ambicioso plan para el desarrollo de energía alternativa a base de cultivos que podrían llegar a reemplazar la coca en muchas regiones del país.

Aun cuando los organizadores del PODER Green Forum estaban desilusionados por la cancelación, sería incorrecto decir—y un insulto para con nuestros conferencistas y participantes—que esto acabó con el evento. En últimas, la ausencia de Gore tan solo generó noticias y distracción de lo que en realidad sucedió en nuestro foro.


Cathleen Farrell es editora de la edición de los Estados Unidos de Poder y editorialista del foro de PODER.

In defense of Alberto Gonzales

When the attorney general testifies before a Senate committee, he'll have precedent and the Constitution on his side.

THE DISPUTE OVER the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys poses a fundamental question: To what degree may the president exercise authority over the direction of law enforcement?

In the aftermath of Watergate, President Carter directed Atty. Gen. Griffin Bell to prepare legislation that would make the attorney general an appointed post for a definite term, subject to removal only for cause. Carter's idea was to keep the attorney general independent of presidential direction to ensure that the Justice Department's authority would never again be abused for political purposes, as it had been during the ethically troubled Nixon presidency.

Despite Carter's noble intent, Bell refused. In a little-known memorandum to the president dated April 11, 1977, he explained why. Any law that restricted the president's power to remove the attorney general — and, by inference, to fire any U.S. attorney — would likely be found unconstitutional. The president, Bell reasoned, is held accountable for the actions of the executive branch in its entirety, including the Justice Department; he must be free to establish policy and define priorities, even in the legal arena. "Because laws are not self-executing, their enforcement obviously cannot be separated from policy considerations," Bell wrote.

Carter argued that the attorney general is different from other Cabinet officers. The job entails dual responsibilities: carrying forward White House policies like any other Cabinet official, and representing the law of the United States, whether it coincides with the president's policies or not. Bell agreed, but he found that insufficient to justify separating the attorney general and subordinate U.S. attorneys from presidential direction.

Bell anchored his reasoning on Supreme Court precedent, especially Chief Justice William Howard Taft's opinion in Myers vs. United States (1926).

Congress enacts different types of laws, the chief justice opined. Some laws require close supervision by the president, while others draw upon the expertise found within the specific agencies of government. Much law, however, generally empowers the executive, and when subordinates perform these functions, "they are exercising not their own but [the president's] discretion," the court said. "Each head of a department is and must be the president's alter ego in the matters of that department where the president is required by law to exercise authority."

The court's analysis did not deny the unique nature of the Justice Department. Indeed, Taft acknowledged that there may be duties that require evenhandedness from executive officers, "the discharge of which the president cannot in a particular case properly influence or control."

Improper influence is, of course, exactly the concern of Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) now, when they seek to ascertain if specific prosecutions were obstructed for partisan reasons. Yet, to illustrate the subtlety of the Senate Judiciary Committee's inquiry, the court also held that a president can remove any appointee from office for a particular prosecution "on the ground that the discretion regularly entrusted to that officer by statute has not been on the whole intelligently or wisely exercised."

Belatedly, D. Kyle Sampson, Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales' former chief of staff, made the same point in his Senate testimony Thursday. The U.S. attorneys who were dismissed had been evaluated not just on their professional skills, Sampson said, but also with respect to their relations with other law enforcement and government leaders and their support for the president's priorities. Rather obviously, Sampson was seeking to anchor the dismissals squarely in the court's precedent that gives the president and the attorney general wide latitude to remove staff.

Bell's analysis is instructive. His refusal to draft Carter's desired legislation does not mean the Senate shouldn't inquire into whether the Bush White House or the Gonzales Justice Department sought to improperly influence a particular case. But it does mean that the Senate has no legitimate basis to object if it turns out the U.S. attorneys were removed because they failed to bring the cases the president or his attorney general sought to give emphasis. The first is corruption and obstruction. The second is political direction.

Bell concluded 30 years ago that blunting that presidential direction would make the attorney general "overly responsive to Congress, and this would clearly affect the separation of powers among the three branches that is established by the Constitution." The same holds true today.

Ultimately, Bell shared Carter's concern that the Justice Department not abuse its authority for political purpose. But, said Bell, the only certain check on that misuse of power "involves trust and integrity — two things no law can provide or guarantee."

When Gonzales appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17, history, precedent and the Constitution will be on his side. It remains to be seen, however, whether he can convince his Senate inquisitors that he possesses those two things no law can provide or guarantee.

By Douglas W. Kmiec, DOUGLAS W. KMIEC, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, was the assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice from 1985 to 1989.
March 31, 2007

Uncle Sam Champions the First Amendment

Bravo Attorney General Alberto Gonzales! I commend your bold decision to launch the "First Freedom Project”. It is high time Americans were reminded by their own government that "Nothing defines us more as a nation and differentiates us more from the extremists who are our enemies than our respect for religious freedom," as you put it in your recent speech to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, TN on February 20, 2007.

Religious freedom is listed first in the Bill of Rights and is a fundamental freedom on which so many of our other freedoms rest. "Our great nation was founded on these principles, and many of us today believe it continues to thrive because of, not despite of, them." added Attorney General Gonzales. Bravo again!

The department released a 43-page report touting its record, under President Bush, in defending religious freedom. “This area of law has not always been given sufficient attention by the federal government, but from its earliest days this administration has worked to increase enforcement of religious freedom laws, including those against religious discrimination. I am very proud of the report we're releasing today, because it describes a legacy of protection unequaled since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” said the Attorney General.

The project will include efforts to inform government officials, employers and ordinary Americans about their religious-liberty rights, but predictably, dissenters such as the Americans United for Separation of Church and State were not thrilled by the announcement releasing a statement on February 22 stating that the Attorney General’s announcement "reeks of hypocrisy." Expect more opposition from humanist and secularist across the land.

DOJ stated that the First Freedom Project was launched because many Americans are unaware that religious discrimination permeates all areas of public life. And so, among the main areas of focus where the DOJ will attempt to combat religious discrimination are education, employment, housing and lending, the use of private land for religious purposes, and public accommodations.


"What [we] have found out is that so often religious discrimination results out of ignorance of the law," stated Eric Treene, special counsel for Religious Discrimination. And so, Attorney General Gonzales added “We are initiating a program of public education, to make certain that people know their rights, and to build relationships with religious, civil rights, and community leaders to ensure that religious liberty concerns are brought to our attention. We will hold a series of regional training seminars for these and other leaders interested in religious liberty. The first will be in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 29, followed by events in Tampa in April, Seattle in May, and others to be announced later. We have launched a new website, firstfreedom.gov, with information on the laws we enforce and how to file a complaint. And we will be distributing informational literature to religious organizations, civil rights groups, and community leaders on how to file a complaint. President Bush declared his commitment to this issue last year by saying: "We reject religious discrimination in every form, and we continue our efforts to oppose prejudice and to counter any infringements on religious freedom."

In addition to the public outreach effort, the attorney general said the First Freedom Project will strengthen protection of religious rights by creating an agency wide Religious Freedom Task Force to review policies and cases. A public-education program will also include a dedicated Web site and literature on how to file a religious discrimination complaint.

"This initiative is needed and should make a real difference. When individuals find themselves in a confrontation concerning their free exercise rights, it helps to have the attorney general and the Department of Justice on your side." concluded Attorney General Gonzales.

The freedom from coercion in matters of conscience and religious expression must be recognized by all as a fundamental human right. Free religious expression is an elemental component of the social order and we are all accountable to preserve it, but mostly our government. I for one am grateful for the Administration’s efforts in this endeavor.

Daniel Garza is President of Council on Faith in Action www.confianow.com

Immigration Lessons from the Past

As long as there have been immigrants coming to America, there has been an anti-immigrant voice. The same sentiment has pretty much been around since the first non-native set his flag on the coastal seashore and claimed the American continent. Five hundred years later, nothing has changed. What is getting old though is that in today’s modern America, old world restrictions and xenophobic arguments towards new immigrants are still taking primacy over much-need practical reform.

History tells us that from 1820 to 1860, most of the immigrants came from Ireland, and western Germany. During the late 1800’s, the Scandinavian nations provided a substantial minority, and from 1890 to 1910, the majority of the immigrant nationals from Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Russia constituted more than half of the total. Each group faced resistance to their arrivals, and many were beset with hatred, discrimination and prejudicial treatment.

The first group of Jews who arrived in the American colonies in September, 1654 were not wanted, and many were forced to move on to Latin America to make their new home. Many more would come to America as “illegal aliens” until the early 1900’s. Today, it is hard to think of America without the contributions of the Jewish community.

During the 1800s, many Chinese made their decision to leave their homeland for America. But, what they found wasn’t what they expected. They were reviled and discriminated because they were “foreigners” who couldn’t speak English and were seen as taking American jobs with their willingness to work for low wages. Today, it is hard to think of America without the contributions of the Asian community.

Around the 1900’s all major cities had their "Irish Town" or "Shanty Town" where the Irish clung together. Irish immigrant ancestors were not wanted in America. Ads for employment often were followed by "NO IRISH NEED APPLY." Today, it is hard to think of America without the contributions of the Irish community.

Consider the following list of shameful policies of the past that were implemented to keep out prior immigrants from entering the United States based on their race or social class:
§ The first measure restricting immigration enacted by Congress was a law in 1862 forbidding American vessels to transport Chinese immigrants to the US.;
§ In 1882, The Chinese Exclusion Act was approved and prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.
§ Gentlemans's Agreement - A diplomatic agreement made in 1907 by the U.S. and Japan provided that the Japanese government would not issue passports to Japanese laborers intending to enter the US.; under the terms of this agreement, the U.S. government refrained until 1924 from enacting laws discriminating Japanese immigrants.
§ In 1917 Congress passed an immigration law that imposed a literacy test and created the Asiatic Barred Zone Act to shut out Asians. Aliens unable to meet minimum mental, moral, physical, and economic standards were excluded, as were other undesirables.
§ Emergency Quota Act - After World War I a marked increase in racism and the growth of isolationist sentiment in the U.S. led to demands for further restrictive legislation. In 1921 a congressional enactment provided for a quota system for immigrants, whereby the number of aliens of any nationality admitted to the U.S. in a year could not exceed 3 percent of the number of foreign-born residents of that nationality living in the U.S. in 1910.
§ McCarren Walter Act - In 1924, the basic immigration quotas were changed; the new law provided for annual immigration quotas for all countries from which aliens might be admitted. Quotas were based on the presumed desirability of various nationalities; aliens from northern and Western Europe were considered more desirable than those from southern and Eastern Europe.

In spite of all these discriminatory policies, we cannot help to marvel at the many immigrants who made their way to America. In the face of so much resistance and indignation, each wave of immigrants proved their detractors wrong and gave much, much more than they ever took to the collective American experience. Each wave of immigrant groups contributed a richness of intellectual talent, specialized skill, and low-skilled labor that made America the strongest and freest Nation on earth. And what can be said of the courageous defense and loss of life on behalf of a grateful Nation by many of the sons and daughters from these otherwise unwanted minority communities in countless battles abroad.

Many of today’s immigrant class continue to enter the United States border illegally, and are despised for their perceived indifference to American language, law, values and traditions. But this ignores the fact that the U.S.-born second generation experiences dramatic increases in English proficiency, educational attainment, and economic earnings. By the third generation most Mexican Americans no longer speak Spanish at all (note: attaining English proficiency is laudable, but the loss of a language is not something we should be celebrating).

The biggest flaw in our immigration system continues to be its lack of a sufficient legal channel for immigrants who are needed to meet the demand for low-skilled labor opportunities. The consistent chatter coming from the nativists ignores the wealth, prosperity and the high quality of life Americans enjoy because of immigration past. They ignore the economic and social benefit of legalizing avenues for temporary workers that will return more often to their originating country if we offer freedom of circularity instead of trapping them within our raised border walls.

Tamar Jacoby writes in a recent article for Foreign Policy “Between 2002 and 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. economy is expected to create some 56 million new jobs, half of which will require no more than a high school education. More than 75 million baby boomers will retire in that period. And declining native-born fertility rates will be approaching replacement level. Native-born workers, meanwhile, are becoming more educated with every decade. Arguably the most important statistic for anyone seeking to understand the immigration issue is this: in 1960, half of all American men dropped out of high school to look for unskilled work, whereas less than ten percent do so now. Labor-force participation among foreign-born men exceeds that of the native born: the figure for illegal immigrant men is the highest of any group -- 94 percent. And immigrants are less likely than natives to be unemployed… According to estimates, two-thirds of illegal immigrants have income tax withheld from their paychecks, and the Social Security Administration collects some $7 billion a year that goes unclaimed, most of it thought to come from unauthorized workers.”

From periods of economic prosperity and tolerance to times of increased xenophobia and nativism, the U.S. repeatedly has enacted laws and regulations that reflect the prevailing sentiments of the time. Christian America must view immigration as sacred in the history of our families. I for one grow weary of politics trampling on sensible and compassionate immigration policy. Immigration reform has to address a range of economic, humanitarian, social and ethical dimensions, and not get lost in red herring discussions about the impending “loss of culture and values’ or building of scalable walls that will not work. Immigrants are people, not statistics. They are created in the image of God. Immigrants of all races, creeds and legal statuses have all proven throughout history they contribute richly to this blessed country by bringing strong family values and an enviable hard work ethic. We are the envy of the world because of they’re contributions.

500 years after the first immigrants arrived to lay claim on the treasures of the new world, we are still struggling with the immigration issue, by advancing restrictionist policies and classifying the immigrant as less than. I suppose it’s because it is easy to nullify or ignore the contributions of 14 million fellow human beings when they are “illegal” - it infers they shouldn’t really exist. But they do exist, and they very much want to preserve the American way of life, American values, and American democracy - legally.

In these defining times, it is important to remember the lessons and wrongs of the past so that we do not repeat them. I believe that immigration is the civil rights issue of the 21st century, and how we handle the immigrant will be judged by the Good Lord up above.

Daniel Garza is the President/CEO of CONFIA, www.confianow.com

Compassionate Immigrationism

The debate over immigration reform begins this week as Federal elected officials begin what are sure to be knock-down, drag-out, good old-fashioned donnybrooks over comprehensive immigration legislation that seek to address the legal status of an estimated 12 to 14 million undocumented workers now in the country. And while immigration reform hangs in the balance, Christians across the vast American firmament are coming to grips on how to reconcile the biblical mandate to show kindness and love for the stranger while maintaining strict law and order.

Throughout history, variegated cultural and social changes have influenced immigration trends so much that our current law is no longer applicable or workable, but I am convinced that new immigration reform can be a humane and effective expression of law even though t he current debate has affirmed for me that America's cultural and social priorities have so split the public order that many no longer seek to reinforce Christian values of compassion, mercy and love for our fellow man. I know this last statement will evoke feelings of exasperation from those focused on building walls, mobilizing the National Guard to the border, and deporting every undocumented person out of America because they sense I don't get it. Well I do. If you have paid attention, everyone agrees that the problem of illegal immigration in America needs to be addressed by a system that is secure, orderly and fair, and that our elected leadership need to put aside animosity and amnesty to advance comprehensive immigration. We must work to make America a lawful, economically prosperous and welcoming society. That also means we must be firm on border security as it is a basic responsibility of any sovereign nation to stop terrorists and criminals from entering its borders, and stop human trafficking and narcotics smuggling. But my brother, we must also be practical and merciful when dealing with those who have worked hard, supported their families, avoided crime and become a part of American life.

Sadly, I sense that our American society's public policies and laws are moving away from the basic commitments and priorities of committed Christian individuals who make up much of our body politic. In every effort of human endeavor we must always, always remember that we are our brother's keeper, and with that responsibility follows accountability before the very eyes of God Almighty. Micah 6:8 tells us to love mercy, do justice and walk humbly with our Lord – these words require us to show compassion, love and respect for one another. Other Scriptural passages such as Exodus 22:21 remind us of our own immigrant legacy, "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt." What is important to point out is that these passages address treatment of the immigrant already in a country, and don't say anything about how they got into the country. These verses cry out across the vista of time to every American today to show fairness toward aliens and the immigrant desperately trying to improve their lot in life.

A society that was not long ago Christian is sadly now clamoring to be identified as predominantly secular. When seen through a historical timetable, the change was triggered in a blink of an eye. Hospitality to strangers and show of mercy to immigrants has been missing the advocacy of churches and Christian men and women (even when there is a compelling case to be made that our economy would benefit from such a reform). It has been replaced by angry calls for deportation and loathing of "illegals" and their children, even though the scriptures call on us to be particularly attentive to the voiceless and the defenseless. Surely the political status of a person does not exempt him/her from the benevolent grace of another Christian brother born on the privileged side of a geographic border. Is not the fundamental moral law of the Golden Rule still in effect in today’s modern times? When did we stop thinking that the aspirations of those who are less fortunate are equal to our very own? How about this one - I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me, found in Matthew 25:35?

And yet, migrant workers, specifically the parents, get dismissed as role models because of their social and economic status and are denied dignity and social standing. We cast blame at them when the economy goes bad; blame them for loss of jobs, bloated welfare rolls, runaway medical costs; and we have even voted in state referendums and initiatives to deny their children citizenship even when they are born on American soil to their undocumented parents. The irony is that they are doing much needed work that American employers need. They provide goods and services that make life easier for the rest of us. Yet instead of recognizing and appreciating their work, many people who suffer from the drawbridge syndrome smugly deny them the opportunity of a public life.

By a twist of historical fate and geographical coincidence, my ancestral hometown lies about 60 miles from the southern tip of Texas, past the Rio Grande and into the Mexican border. My parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and ancestors 400 years back were all born in their homes at or near the small provincial township of Garza Gonzalez, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. My father looked to the United States in much the same way that Woodie Guthrie described in a song he wrote about John Steinbeck's novel - "The Grapes of Wrath" - A book written about the travails and hardships of a migrant family from Oklahoma fleeing the dustbowl and the ravages of the depression. One of the verses of the song reads: "They stood on a Mountain and they looked to the West, and it looked like the promisedland. That bright green valley with a river running through, there was work for every single hand, they thought, there was work for every single hand." For years he traveled to California, Washington, Florida and would return to Mexico for the winter and spring months. Many from Garza Gonzalez also heard about the endless opportunities En los Estados Unidos and soon cast their fortunes to the north finding work as immigrant farm workers. They would talk of the inequality they encountered in the United States, and the mistreatment they received because of their social and cultural status. But they would also talk of the opportunities given to them by kind neighbors, new friendships they established with ranch-owners and farm bosses, how in Christian America hope and opportunity abounded. How they would cross the border penniless and return with the hefty earnings they made during the summer and fall months "en los Estados Unidos". As a migrant farm worker until I was 19, I felt privileged that I was fortunate to have lived half of my youth in Mexico and experienced the depth of its culture, its cities and its stunning landscapes; privileged to have been taught the beautiful Spanish language, and fortunate to learn of its history and enjoy its golden age of cinema. Privileged to receive the support and love of extended family and friends who looked to God for wisdom and redemption.But I was also privileged to have been born in the United States and to have spent the other half of my youth here. I was fortunate to inherit America's richness of values, opportunity, and its spirit of justice. Privileged to grow up in a nation where freedom and responsibility have equal weight, and where the son of a farm working family can grow up to work for the President of the United States (I served in the Bush Administration as Associate Director for the Office of Public Liaison at the White House from March 2004 to January 2006). I would not trade my dual-national experience for anything in the world. And maybe that is why the first wave of marchers during the recent immigration rallies were equally proud to raise the United States and Mexican flags. Pride. Maybe Manifest Destiny meant the expansion of the young and brash American Nation, or maybe it meant that the destiny of the Mexican people and the people of the United States would be eternally joined and appreciated by its peoples, brought together to help each other, to develop trade, increase commerce and create a mutual vision of a better world for generations to come. Times have changed in America. Many lessons have been learned and many people have paid a heavy price in the civil rights struggles of the not to distant past. As Americans, we should be able to better understand each other. As children of two nations tempered by a one-time costly and bitter war, we were brought together by a shared history and a geography marked by God's hand. Hispanics who call the United States their home have experienced the loss of their children in the battlefields of foreign lands in defense of our common values and shared patronage. No one can say we don't belong, and that we do not love our country when we have died to defend it. Unquestionably, America's Christian love and compassion has played an integral part in its development, and it continues to shape our future. We must avoid angry and hurtful rhetoric; immigrants from every part of this world have earned their stake to this great country. They are those hard working, honest people who send their sons to protect this nation, Christian men and women who also labor in the voneyards and give compassionately when someone is in need.

The House will soon follow after the Senate with a debate over immigration that will make the Senate sparring match pale in comparison. And then of course, if Senators and House members reach consenus after the conference process, President George W. Bush has said he will sign an immigration bill that offers strong security measures, a tough domestice enforcement program and a temporary worker component. As Christians, let's come together and call on our leaders to find practical and effective solution to their disagreements.

But let us not forget our brothers and sisters in need.


Daniel Garza is President of Council on Faith in Action www.confianow.com
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

The Democrat Party is Flirting with Pro-Life Voters, I say they're just a Big Tease

For the past 30 years, Democrat Party officials watched begrudgingly as pro-life Democrats left the party over the issue of abortion. Reagan Democrats left in the 1980s; many also migrated to the Republican Party after the 1994 GOP tidal wave election year, and evangelicals en masse moved to the Republican Party on the double whammy of abortion and gay marriage. Those who left often heard the proverbial "don't let the door hit you on the way out" by the pro-abortion party loyalist who still make up the vast majority of the party.

Lately though, successful Federal and State election wins by pro-life Democrats are challenging the long established liberal stratagem of the Democratic Party. Consequently, some are convinced the November mid-term elections may have marked a defining moment in the future of the pro-life movement in the party. Accordingly, many are now beginning to think they can make a serious run at courting the faith community so as to solidify their newly won leaderships in both houses of Congress (In the last election, evangelicals made up 26 percent of the electorate and 78 percent of them voted for Bush).

Certainly, the Republican advantage among religious voters had come from being able to successfully master the "Values" debate. Measured in that scale, most Democrats came up short in the past. Last year's mid-terms caused a wide crack in that long established stratagem as well.

In the run up to the 2006 elections, it was clear the Republicans had made several fatal missteps, and the drubbing only confirmed what most had suspected; The GOP had failed to excite the requisite number of values voter to retain the leadership in both houses. Many blamed the slew of scandals stemming from the moral shortcomings of some high-profile party members for the losses, and others blamed the perception held by the electorate that the party failed to fulfill campaign promises to reduce abortions, pass anti-gay marriage legislation, increase religious liberties, and the inability to halt the startling growth of the Federal government. Lastly, many others pointed at the mire in Iraq as the over-arching reason causing conservative voter fatigue.

The Democrats in turn seized on the scandals and shortened the values gap by fielding pro-life and pro-faith Democrat candidates to State and Federal positions ( Six new members of the House and one new senator who oppose legal abortion were elected Nov. 7 as part of a Democratic swell that put the party in control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994) , opened their "big tent" to pro-life organizations, and promised to advance a more moderate agenda that was more reflective of mainstream America. The election results showed the move to the middle paid off.

The question then becomes, is the party seriously going to embrace a robust pro-life faction within its tent, and should the Hispanic communities of faith buy into it?

Before offering up a personal take on the answer, let us revisit a time where the Democratic Party was 30 years ago, and where it is today on the issue of abortion.

First, the non-profit organization, Democrat's for Life (yes, there is such an organization) points out that the following: Twenty years ago, the Democrats held a 292-seat majority in the House; 125 of those seats belonged to pro-life Democrats. Then, only twelve years ago, Democrats held a 258-seat majority with about 50 pro-life Democrats. Subsequently, the party soon lost the majority in the House while the number of pro-life Democrats had dwindled to 35. The party hit bottom when it lost the majority in the U.S. Senate two years ago (many attributed the loss to three key seats in strong pro-life states such as Georgia , Missouri, and Minnesota).
Now let's take a look at the reasons why the Democratic Party made deliberate attempt to manipulate its values tune (at least during this last election cycle).
A recent Zogby poll commissioned by Associated Television News President Brad O'Leary showed the results spell disaster for Democrats who try to run on the abortion issue.
"The abortion issue is this year's political third rail' for congressional Democrats and for Hillary Clinton in 2008," said O'Leary.
"There is absolutely no way a presidential or a congressional candidate running for office can grow their base if they insist on championing the abortion issue," Mr. O'Leary said.
The poll found a majority of respondents took anti-abortion positions on the following questions:
§ Parental notification laws that were recently upheld by the Supreme Court (55% support for girls 18 yrs. & younger; 69% for girls 16 yrs. old & younger; only 36% and 23% disagree respectively)
§ Abortion ends a human life (59% agree; 29% disagree)
§ The prohibition of federal funds for abortions abroad (69% agree with the prohibition; 21% disagree)
§ Abortion because of the sex of the fetus (86% agree should be illegal; 10% disagree should be illegal)
§ When life begins (50% believe it begins at conception; 19% believe life begins at birth)
§ A new federal partial-birth abortion bill (50% want to see another bill; 39% don't want to see another bill)
§ Requiring counseling about a mother's options before undergoing an abortion (55% agree with such a counseling requirement; 37% disagree)
§ A 24-hour waiting period (56% agree with waiting period; 37% disagree)
§ Federal & state financing of abortions for poor women (51% disagree with financing; 37% disagree)
§ Laws that charge a person who kills a pregnant woman with two murders (64% agree with such laws; 23% disagree)

The poll results clearly suggested a shift in the electorate away from abortion rights over the past decade, as Mr. O'Leary indicated.
He also mentioned that the polls suggest that any congressional Democrat candidate who champions abortion rights could lose as much as 20 percent support from the electorate. For some time now, polls haven shown that the American people's opinion on abortion has been trending against the brutal practice.

To sum up the sentiment, Jeb Burn wrote in a Washington Post editorial titled, "Life and My Party," that he had "a problem with my party these days: I cannot reconcile its traditional liberalism, egalitarianism and life-affirming qualities with its current love affair with nihilism and abortion."

Since self-professed conservatives greatly outnumbered those who identified theselves as liberal, it was especially critical for Democrats to appeal to the center. And so, given the compelling case made by the poll numbers and the electorate's growing discomfort with the moral dimension of abortion, Democrats privately took heed.

Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, an organization that works to promote pro-life causes in the party said "2004 was very different from 2006 [for pro-life Democrats], and it's going to be very different in 2008 when we rewrite the platform," Day said. "I'm pretty confident it's going to be a lot better and a lot more accommodating for pro-life Democrats." She added "The challenge we have is to not close the door and to keep it open and keep going on this road of really allowing people to vote their conscience and make their own statements on abortion and not have the party dictate it." A young demographic that holds liberal values but is also pro-life is growing despite espousing a view in direct contrast to the party's traditional stance. Day asserted, "Democrats are beginning to think that maybe it's not such a good idea to be in bed with NARAL. They're beginning to realize that NARAL has taken control of our party and it's time to kick them out."

Some of the young pro-life voices in the party include Harold Ford Jr., Bob Casey Jr. and those in the US House like Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Charlie Wilson of Ohio, Chris Carney and Jason Altmire both of Pennsylvania.

§ Heath Shuler is a retired National Football League quarterback who comes from an evangelical Christian background and espouses conservative social views.
§ Harold Ford Jr. has stated he is pro-life and supports a ban on same sex marriage. American Prospect article quotes Ford as stating "They're going to say I'm a liberal. I believe that marriage should be between men and women. I don't know any better, that's how I was brought up. We didn't have any choice. Where I grew up, when you awakened on Sunday, you went to church...I learned the faith thing the old-fashioned way ! Me, a liberal ? I chair the faith-based caucus !"
§ Pennsylvania voters chose Democratic state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. to replace Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. Both ran as Catholics who opposed legal abortion. Casey is described as a social conservative and an economic liberal. He is pro-life, pro-gun rights, and son of the late Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey (One of the low lights of the 1992 Democratic National Convention was the party's refusal to let the elder Casey speak about his pro-life views).

The crux of the matter is this; As a Christian conservative who should be excited about the Democratic Party's new found love for pro-life candidates and it's declared run to the middle, why do I still feel uneasy?

My sense is that there is no Godly conviction behind the party's effort to woo pro-life voters, as much as it is about securing the commanding heights of the U.S. political system. What I mean is, I'm convinced the reason for the party's nominal shift on abortion has resulted more out of a political strategy that is nothing short of voter exploitation and issue manipulation. It is not as a result of a profound and deep seeded belief that abortion is a moral wrong as believed by the segment of the community of faith that supports pro-life democrats through their vote and financial contributions.

"I can tell you what I expect," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "I think the Democratic leadership will seek to advance the policy agenda of the hardcore groups but do so under the cover of deceptive rhetorical campaigns." (New York Times article)

And this is unfortunate. I am certain many traditional Democrats long for the party of yore whose beliefs were anchored on biblical axioms and an adherence to a Godly calling as expressed by one of party's favorite sons, President John F. Kennedy during his inaugural address " And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God… With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own." Regrettably, the party's recent bent to the middle is not an acknowledgement of its sense of duty to God, but a mere reading of political tea leaves.
To be sure, a closer look shows the elections of these pro-life Democrats won't necessarily satisfy Christian conservatives on other moral issues. Congressman Shuler for example supports stem cell research using embryos from in vitro fertilization. Casey opposes a federal marriage amendment and received campaign money from the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest homosexual activist organization. Moreover, the Democrat Party platform contains enough liberal and human secularist stuff to make any Hispanic Pentecostal Evangelical shudder.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said by his count there is 15 fewer pro-life votes in the House and perhaps four fewer in the Senate, depending upon the issue. He said that might still constitute a majority supporting limits on abortion in some cases, but by a much narrower margin. Of 41 freshmen Democrats elected to the House after all, only 6 are anti-abortion. Regrettably, pro-life groups in the House actually suffered a net loss of 13 members. That means statutory restrictions on abortion, which must be renewed by each Congress, are now in serious jeopardy. This loss of strength actually reflects a political victory by the abortion lobby.

Truth be told, it is the least kept secret in Washington that the few pro-life Democrats in the party are frankly an un-welcomed contingent (The Democrat Party's platform opposes attempts to reverse the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade which recognized abortion as a consitutional right by judicial fiat- over 50 million abortions have been performed since).

But mostly , my concern is that the prospect of future pro-life Democrat wins are anathema to folks like Kate Michelman, past president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. For the Democrats to nominate pro-life candidates, she says, would mean the party is abandoning its "core values."

And this is it, really, what strikes me most; Abortion is a Democrat Party core value.

A fact I cannot reconcile with my Christian beliefs - mainly that God is the author of all life, and it is therefore sacred and to be defended.

Ultimately, if Democrats are going to be a dominant party again, they must at the very least begin to embrace pro-lifers and their Christian worldview. The party will have to prove that it is sincere in its openness and that it stands behind a policy of welcoming those with differing views the issue of abortion. They must begin to encourage those that left to come back; a Herculean effort to be sure. It must celebrate efforts such as the January 20 pro-life march in San Francisco, California where 15,000 Christians will gather once again to celebrate life with a rally and walk carrying "Women Deserve Better than Abortion" signs. It is happening in a city where until recently abortions were reputed to have outnumbered live births. That is the change that gives me optimism. When the movement is made independent of political motives, but motivated by an adherence to Godly principles and beliefs.

And while Catholics and evangelical Christians may be disillusioned with the scandals and personal moral shortcomings of individual members in the conservative right, abortion and gay marriage will still be the issues that determine their vote because both are the right-or-wrong issue of our time. When everything is done and said, the fact is that the Republican Party looks upon abortion and gay marriage as a moral wrong reprehensible to God Almighty, and the Democratic Party does not look upon these social issues as a wrong but as a core belief. That's the crucial difference between the two parties (the Zogby poll referenced earlier showed 90% of registered Republicans are generally pro-life while 80% of registered Democrats are pro-abortion.)

In spite of their fervor and optimism, a scant number of pro-life members in the Democrat Party have a difficult challenge in effectively advancing pro-life policies and initiatives based on a Christian worldview. Many in the Democratic Party would rather lose than run a pro-life candidate.

The vast majority of Hispanics in this country, nearly 75%, self-identify themselves as pro-life. We must unite to demand both parties affirm the Biblical standard of the value, dignity, and sanctity of human life. We must come together to send a clear message to elected members from both the Republican and Democratic parties: Protect our values.

To quote one of the liberal left's most celebrated heroes, Justice William O. Douglas "We are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being". That is the conscience calling us to remedy the evil of abortion. And it is the social ill of abortion that continues to find refuge in the vast majority of the Democrat Party, despite the efforts of a very courageous few battling within its fold. But if you are considering voting for a Democrat candidate, I say to you, be strong and of good courage; reject slick political tactics that entice you to vote for candidates who do not advance a Christian worldview, but stand firm for those who act on Godly conviction, Democrat or Republican.

Every effort to reduce abortion counts — including those of Democrats committed to protecting the rights of the unborn.

The Hill: CHC nears split as female members protest new chairman

By Josephine Hearn
Five female members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) refused to back incoming Caucus Chairman Joe Baca (D-Calif.) in a vote Wednesday, citing concerns ranging from poor management of the group’s political arm to a lack of respect for female lawmakers.

Reps. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) and Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) abstained from a vote to make Baca chairman of the all-Democratic group, while Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) voted "No."

The only female member of the 23-member Caucus to support Baca’s candidacy was the outgoing chairwoman, Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.).

Some lawmakers feared the divisive vote, which devolved into a nasty closed-door debate, could lead the group to break up along gender lines.

"If the feelings that were there [Wednesday] continue to be there, it could happen. Yeah, definitely," said Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.). "If people feel they are being discriminated against, there is a problem."

Baca ran unopposed and was named chairman by a majority of the Caucus. He will serve a two-year term.

Solis said her abstention signified a concern that the women were not accorded the same respect or privileges of seniority as male lawmakers were.

"If we are to be truly representative of the Latino community, we have to give equal treatment to all Caucus members, regardless of gender or seniority," she said.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) had never seen a more bitter meeting of the group."It was divisive. There are differences," he said. "I think [the women] have some legitimate concerns, issues that need to be dealt with. We’re all equals in this process. People want to feel their opinions are valued. They want to feel included."

The vote is the latest and most heated clash between the group’s younger female members and their older male colleagues. Some of the women believe that Baca and some male lawmakers do not accord them sufficient respect, ignore their input or create unnecessary hurdles to their advancement. Others charged that Baca had poorly managed the group’s PAC. Six Hispanic members – three men and three women -- withdrew in protest from the PAC earlier this year with concerns that Baca and his allies had used the fund to contribute to their children’s campaigns. There also has been a sense among some members that Mexican-Americans such as Baca and Napolitano have had a monopoly on the chairmanship.

Asked for comment, Baca did not directly address the women’s charges, instead noting his intention to focus on issues important to Hispanic women.

"Among my plans for the CHC is the creation of a new task force that focuses on Latinas so we can address the unique needs of women in our community."

Baca also noted that Linda Sanchez had volunteered to serve as the group’s whip even after abstaining. Sanchez had taken on the role to try to influence the Caucus from the inside, a House Democratic aide said.

Other female members, however, were not sure that they would participate if the group stayed on the same track.Asked if she would leave the CHC, Loretta Sanchez responded, "You have to look at it, but I believe so."

Wednesday’s meeting also considered the issue of seniority. Some members, especially the women, noted that seniority had often been a key factor in choosing a chairman. They were disappointed that the more senior Velazquez had not been automatically chosen to be chairwoman. Velazquez had toyed with challenging Baca but decided after the election to focus on her role as the incoming chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee.

Some male members countered with the argument that Baca’s service assecond vice chair and later first vice chair of the group qualified him to move up under more recent practice. Those members wished to cease debate and proceed to a vote. They put the issue of ending debate to a vote with those in favor prevailing by a margin of one vote.

After Baca was elected, the discussion became heated as one female lawmaker accused him of having made disparaging personal comments about her to a gathering of state officials. Baca denied having made the comments, but the atmosphere had soured to such an extent that members on both sides left discouraged.

"It was very harsh, very disturbing," one female attendee said. "It’s a very traditional machismo pattern in that they continue to blow it off and argue that it doesn’t exist."

Grijalva, who will serve under Baca as the Caucus’s first vice chair and is well-regarded by both sides, said he would work to prevent a split.

"I’m going to do my part to keep it together," he said. "It’s an important year now that we are in the majority."

The Hill

Hispanics, Evangelicals and the Mid-Term Elections

Hispanics, Evangelicals and the Mid-Term Elections; Have their political loyalties shifted?

Many in the political center are declaring the beginning of the end for the values movement as they clink their raised champaign glasses in celebration over last Tuesday’s elections. These same voices are now huatedly and cheerfully calling on the two main parties to hurry toward the political center, forsake their base, and endeavor at all cost to attract the much vaunted moderate voters. “The Democrats didn't win the election for being liberal, Republicans lost it for being too conservative” they say.

It is also said in addition to this worrisome abasement of conservative values that the right has also lost all progress made in the past two election cycles with the Hispanic electorate because Hispanics are loyal to a centrist voice.

The fact is, none of the election data or the exit polling bears this out.

I will address the issue of Hispanic voters shifting their party loyalty first, and the calls to have evangelicals go soft on their values and prostrate themselves at the pedestal of political moderation second.

It must be stated that loyalty has to be earned. It must be earned by addressing and respecting the wishes of the electorate (note: I did not say one must endeavor to blindly bestow or obsequiously provide all things desired – that is for a later thesis). The Hispanic vote, like it or not, is now a major force to be reckoned with in the American body politic. As these elections proved, when candidates choose to ignore, and worse yet antagonize an entire constituency, they will experience bitter disappointment.

And so, Hispanics turned out massively against candidates who stridently campaigned against comprehensive immigration reform, and not in rejection of a conservative agenda espoused by these same candidates. Accounting for 8 percent of the total vote on Tuesday, only 29% voted for Republican candidates. In 2004, 44% of Hispanics surveyed in exit polls said they voted for President Bush.) More importantly, 69% of these voters declared to exit pollsters that immigration was their #1 priority compared to 19% who stated the war in Iraq was their #1 priority.

This was not unexpected. Karl Rove, the President’s Senior Policy Advisor, in an interview with the folks from Townhall on the eve of the 2006 mid-term elections stated “. I do think that individual Republican candidates are going to look back after this election and find that the rhetoric that they adopted hurt them in the Hispanic community. And we’re going to find other candidates who are going to look back and find that the rhetoric that they adopted by emphasizing a comprehensive solution to our border problems won them support in the Hispanic community. So I think there’s going to be... And in that instance, I think immigration will be seen as…a comprehensive approach will be seen as a winner, and a narrow restrictionist approach will be seen as a loser.”

Indeed, many of the candidates who took those “restrictionist approaches” to immigration reform are now having to look for jobs outside the Halls of Congress. Moreover, many GOP party leaders have been rightly blaming harsh rhetoric on immigration for the reversal of political fortunes with the Hispanic electorate. The incoming Congress should take heed of these political realities when taking up immigration reform anew, and give immediate consideration to a bill that provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who pass a background check and pay fines for entering the country illegally. If the Democrats want to stick around longer than a two-year election cycle, they must reach across the aisle to achieve approval in the House.

On Wednesday, President Bush identified immigration as an area in which he'd work with Democrats. The President has stated “A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, reduce the appeal of human smugglers, make it less likely that people would risk their lives to cross the border, and ease the financial burden on State and local governments by replacing illegal workers with lawful taxpayers. Above all, a temporary worker program would add to our security by making certain we know who is in our country and why they are here.” He added on Wednesday "I would hope we can get something done.. There's an issue where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats."

But make no mistake; neither party will be able to approve a comprehensive immigration reform package on its own. In fact, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have yet to identify immigration as a priority. If these past elections have served any lesson, the winds of change are blowing a strong and mighty gale. At the rate that anti-immigration candidates are being rejected by the electorate, I have a feeling continued and persistent Hispanic voter turn out, now more than ever, will help bring about much needed comprehensive immigration reform.

And so, you may ask, if Hispanics did not vote heavily Democrat in rejection of traditional values, then what happened? The moderate’s interpretation of the 2006 midterm election is “..a rejection of a Christian fundamentalism as expressed by the religious right,'' said Robert Parham, a self described centrist Baptist from the Baptist Center for Ethics in Nashville, Tennessee. Famed moderate Senator Arlen Spector added the election results represented a 'seismic earthquake' and that the Republican Party must become 'a lot more progressive and a lot less ideological”.

Let me be clear with the respect to the stated demise of the values voting community; the vast majority of evangelicals (and I am speaking as one) could not and will not align themselves with a candidate that defends a pro-abortion policy, advances a non-traditional marriage agenda, and votes against prayer in schools and other issues that they consider contradictory to Holy Scripture. We cling tightly to individual responsibility and spiritual accountability. Our generation has made a collective decision that we will not stand idly by as we observe countless abortions of innocent life across the land, the misguided experimentation with traditional marriage, unfettered pornography on the web, indecency increasing day by day on our public airwaves, fantastic spikes in illegitimacy, ever increasing incarceration rates, and uncontrolled teen pregnancy (to name a few of the social ills).

The numbers bear this out. According to exit polling by the Pew Research Center, white Christian evangelicals turned out in essentially the same proportion to other voters this week as they did in the last couple of elections. The Gallup Poll showed “religious, white voters tended to be extraordinarily Republican, as usual”. They of course vote Republican because the party’s platform is more compatible to their political and ideological sensibilities. But the Republicans should know, Evangelicals are more loyal to the issues than they are to the party. Voters for the marriage amendment ran hundreds of thousands of votes better than for Republican Senator George Allen in Virginia; which speaks to how discerning the voters are (the initiatives banning gay marriage passed in seven of eight states where they were on the ballot).

No, the election was not a repudiation of conservative values, especially when you consider that most of the incumbents who lost re-election were moderate Republicans such as Senators Chafee and Dewine, or faced conservative candidates such as Bob Casey; who is openly religious and anti-abortion.

If one vies that evangelicals have lost their faith based on the loss of Congress and the Senate by the Republicans, they make the mistake of being shortsighted and assuming they only vote one party. The fact is, the mid-term elections demonstrated the war in Iraq was a compelling factor for many Americans who were frustrated by the perceived lack of progress, and wanted to effectuate a change in course by virtue of their vote. But make no mistake, the Evangelical community will continue to fight for Godly principles and a moral agenda that makes America strong, and we will continue to vote for candidates that advance traditional family values.

The 2006 elections proved Evangelical values voters and the Hispanic electorate (sometime these constituencies are one in the same as it is in my case) are discriminating voters that will not be taken for granted. It also proved the political loyalty of the Hispanic community is yet to be determined.

Daniel Garza is President of Council on Faith in Action www.confianow.com