Israel Ready to Save Western Civilization, Again
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Heartening news from WorldNetDaily:

Israel Ready to Strike Iran

Israel has conducted military exercises for a pre-emptive strike against several of Iran's nuclear power facilities and is ready to attack if Russia supplies Iran with rods for enriching uranium, Israeli officials told reporters.

An Israeli defense source in Tel Aviv told the London Sunday Times, which first published the story, that "Israel will on no account permit Iranian reactors - especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help - to go critical."

The source was also quoted as saying that any strike on Iran's reactors would probably be carried out by long-range F-15I jets, flying over Turkey, with simultaneous operations by commandos on the ground.

Russia is expected to deliver the enriching rods, currently being stored at a Russian port, late next year after a dispute over financial terms is resolved.

"If the worst comes to the worst and international efforts fail," the source said, "we are very confident we'll be able to demolish the ayatollah's nuclear aspirations in one go."

The source explained that any strike could be accompanied by an attack on other Iranian targets, including a facility at Natanz, where the Iranians have attempted to enrich uranium, and a plant at Arak, which International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors suspect of nuclear activity.

The Sunday Times also quoted a senior U.S. official warning of a pre-emptive Israeli strike if Russia continues cooperating with the Iranians. He said Washington was unlikely to block Israeli attacks against Iran.

Let's hope "unlikely to block" means the US also will not take the shameful position it took in 1981, joining the fictitious "international community" in condemning Israel's civilization-saving attack on Saddam's Osirak nuclear reactor.

Recent reports on the Bush administration strategy look promising. Sky News reports:

Bush Sets Sights on Iran

The American government has reportedly set it sights on toppling the regime in Iran if it wins a new term in office.

The US wants to trigger a revolt within Iran by stoking up dissent among the population, a White House official told The Times.

The claim came as an Iranian minister said intelligence services had dismantled all branches of
the country's al Qaeda network.

Iran is part of the "axis of evil" named by the US President along with Iraq and North Korea.

But unlike the toppling of Saddam Hussein, The Times said a change in Iran's rulers would not come about through military action.

However, the anonymous official, known to be a hawk, hinted at a possible strike against Iran's contentious nuclear programme.

Iran has agreed to defuse its nuclear threat but the US remains unconvinced.

"If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran," the official said.

Now ask yourself, would John "I'll-make-the-French-like-us-again" Kerry take such action?

If you would like to again express your support for regime change in Iran and a strike against Iranian nuclear targets before the reactors go critical, you can contact the White House here, and use our Take Action page to copy your Senators and Representative.

Child Custody Protection Act Scheduled for House Hearing
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

The Susan B. Anthony List reports:

Child Custody Protection Act Finally Gets A Hearing in the House

On Tuesday, July 20th, for the first time since Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen introduced it in 2003, there will be a hearing on the Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA) before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. The bill would make it a crime to circumvent a state's laws governing parental involvement in minors abortion by taking a pregnant minor across state lines.

"The Child Custody Protection Act [H.R.1755] will not only uphold the laws of our country, but it will give back to parents the right to parent, it will strengthen family bonds and most importantly, it will ensure that America's youth have a safer, healthier, and brighter future," said Rep. Ros-Lehtinen.

Under current law, if a state has laws governing parental notification or consent those laws may be bypassed by taking a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. As a consequence, parents may never know if their daughter has had an abortion.

The law would make exceptions, however, for cases in which the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother.

The alert includes a CapWiz-type form and sample letter you can transmit to your Representative and Senator.

Senate Says, "Let the black-robed tyrants decide"
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Family Research Council's Washington Update reports:

50 Senators Invite Unelected Judges to Redefine Marriage

With 48 Senators in favor and 50 Senators against, the procedural vote was 12 votes short of the 60 needed to get the amendment to the Senate floor for an up or down vote. This was round one in the debate over marriage and now that it is over, we begin training for round two. I believe the pro-family forces have benefited from the debate over the past few days in two ways: One, every time this issue is forced into the public square, the opposition to same-sex "marriage" among the American public grows. Second, we now know which Senators are for traditional marriage and which ones want to allow unelected judges to usher same-sex marriage down the isle, and by November, so will voters in every state. Would we have preferred a knockout in the first round? Of course. But we've known from the beginning that this was going to be a long fight. What we didn't know was just how little regard Senators on the left would have for the hundreds of thousands of calls and letters that American's sent expressing the "will of the people" on this issue.

Comments made by Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) were quite telling when, after admitting she had received over 50,000 pieces of mail on the subject, she said, "People do not understand that the Constitution relegates family law to the States...". Of course, it is Sen. Feinstein who doesn't seem to understand that state laws can be overturned with the stroke of a judicial pen and that the only way to protect states' rights on this issue is to pass a constitutional amendment.

And then there is Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) who said in response to the argument that the Supreme Court might rule in favor of homosexual "marriage" under the full faith and credit clause and thereby force such marriages on all states, "That is not the way I read the case law." Perhaps Sen. Clinton should read the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas for an understanding of the Court's current view on matters. The comments by Sens. Feinstein and Clinton add up to nothing but hypocritical humbug. The will of the people is clear and so is the way in which we should protect marriage in this country. This fight has just begun.

The FRC has created a nifty page where you can quickly learn how your senators voted on the motion to invoke cloture. It links to a CapWiz page, complete with a sample message you can customize and, with a single click, send to both your senators.

Exploring Tort Reform
Topic: Tort Reform
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In a recent commentary for the Heritage Foundation website's Press Room section, Paul Rosenzweig notes the outrageous cost of US litigation:

This method of redressing civil wrongs is tremendously inefficient, costing Americans more than $180 billion per year -- roughly 2 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. By contrast, other countries' tort systems operate far less expensively. Great Britain's system claims only 0.6 percent of its GDP annually; Denmark's only 0.4 percent.

Yet legislative efforts to reform the system have stalled in state capitals and Washington, DC. This is partially due to the wealth and raw political pull of trial lawyers. Their campaign contributions -- running to hundreds of millions of dollars every election cycle -- have bought a dedicated opposition to reform among many incumbents.

Rosenzweig offers a couple of interesting proposals for reducing the obscene legal fees harvested by both plaintiff and defense lawyers. Should such proposals be enacted, medical malpractice and class action sharks like John Edwards would have to struggle by on a 5- or $10 million fortune, instead of a $70 million one, but we all have our crosses to bear.

And speaking of medical malpractice lawsuit abuse, SickOfLawsuits.org is offering an online petition for healthcare litigation reform. Their solution, based on capping unreasonable awards, is also worth examining.

More on Thought Crime in Britain and the US
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

A superb piece from Mark Steyn answers questions I posed in my July 9 post "More Thought Crime in Britian":

A couple of years back, I mentioned the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and received a flurry of lively e-mails. It was Valentine's Day 1989, you'll recall, when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his extraterritorial summary judgment on a British subject, and shortly thereafter large numbers of British Muslims were marching through English cities openly calling for Rushdie to be killed.

A reader in Bradford recalled asking a West Yorkshire officer on the street that day why the various "Muslim community leaders" weren't being arrested for incitement to murder. The officer said they'd been told to "play it cool". The calls for blood got more raucous. My correspondent asked his question again. The policeman told him to "F--- off, or I'll arrest you."

Isn't that pretty much how it's likely to go once David Blunkett's new protection for Islam is in place?. . . .

Meanwhile, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the Western world, but Blunkett wants us to pretend that it's a wee delicate bloom which has to be sheltered from anything unpleasant. The other week, the governor of one of those Nigerian states that now lives under sharia called for the burning of all Christian churches within his jurisdiction. Every Friday, on state TV and radio throughout the Arab world and in mosques somewhat closer to home, the A-list imams call for the killing of Jews and infidels. Well, good luck to them. But, if they can dish it out so enthusiastically, couldn't they learn to take it just an eensy-teensy-weensy bit?

Steyn includes a prescient quote from Winston Churchill's The River War. Read it and pass it on, while its still legal to do so:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

And for further reading. . .

While I don't agree with all of the Traditional Values Coalition's positions and rhetoric, they do offer a hate crimes legislation report which is well worth reading. You can download it in PDF here.

For more on pending thought crimes legislation, click "Legislation" under "Entries by Topic" at the top left of this page.

Call Your Senators, and Ahhhnold
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Here's two important alerts for Marriage Protection Monday:

From the Family Research Council:

Call Your Senators - Ask Them to Protect Marriage!

As the Senate prepares to vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage, it is vital that all pro-family Americans contact their Senators in support of this necessary amendment.

Click on this link for a list of Senators that Family Research Council has deemed to be the highest priority. If your Senator is listed, please contact him or her immediately and tell them to cast a vote in support of traditional marriage during the week of July 12th.

And from the Campaign for California Families:

ACTION: TELL ARNOLD WHICH WAY THE WIND SHOULD BLOW

California's governor is wetting his finger and holding it up in the air. The governor who would not take a position on AB 1967, the homosexual "marriage" bill defeated earlier this year, has now set up a poll to ask "if you support same-sex marriage, press one," and "if you oppose, press two." Please take action and call the 24/7 recording to help Governor Schwarzenegger care more - much more - about God's sacred institution of marriage. Homosexual activists are calling right now and pushing the "support" button. You and your friends should do the opposite - call and press the "oppose" button! Hopefully Arnold will receive so many calls, he'll take his finger out of the air, and instead, raise his hand and solemnly pledge to veto homosexual "marriage" should it ever land on his desk.

Act Now: To register your opposition to "same-sex marriage," call (916) 445-2841, press 5, then 1, then 2.

Mindless Complacency
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In today's column, one of his best, Charles Krauthammer dares to discuss the elephant in the livingroom:

There is no gradualness and there are no countermeasures to a dozen nuclear warheads detonating simultaneously in American cities. Think of what just two envelopes of anthrax did to paralyze the capital of the world's greatest superpower. A serious, coordinated attack on the United States using WMDs could so shatter the United States as a functioning advanced industrialized society that it would take generations to rebuild.

What is so dismaying is that such an obvious truth needs repeating. The passage of time, the propaganda of the anti-American left, and the setbacks in Iraq have changed nothing of that truth. This is the first time in history the knowledge of how to make society-destroying weapons has been democratized. Today, small radical groups allied with small radical states can do the kind of damage to the world that in the past only a great, strategically located industrialized power like Germany or Japan could do.

It is a new world and exceedingly dangerous. Everything is at stake. We are now deeply engaged in a breastbeating exercise for not having connected the dots before 9/11. And yet here we are three years after 9/11, the dots already connected themselves, and we are under a powerful urge to ignore them completely.

Read it all. Then send it to your elected officials and everyone you know. The first step in preventing nuclear destruction is to stop pretending it can't happen.

UNFPA Funding Vote Today
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

I could not get any info on whether the vote referenced in this alert has occured. Just in case it has not, here's the alert, from the Family Research Council's Washington Update:

Key Vote on Abortion in House - Your Call Can Decide the Outcome

[Today], the powerful House Appropriations Committee will consider a spending bill for foreign aid that will include a debate over abortion. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) will introduce an amendment that would give federal money to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization that supports China's one-child policy and indirectly funds coerced abortions. President Bush has firmly opposed any support for UNFPA but the House Appropriations Committee is evenly split between pro-life and pro-abortion Members so the fight over this amendment will be decided by one or two votes either way.

FRC has identified eight key votes on this committee. If you are from one of these states call the Capitol switchboard, 202-224-3121, and ask them for the Member's office and express your opposition to the Lowey amendment to fund UNFPA. The U.S government should not be in the business of funding any abortions, much less forced abortions. Key votes: Ralph Regula (R-OH), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), David Hobson (R-OH), George Nethercutt (R-WA), Duke Cunningham (R-CA), Kay Granger (R-TX), John Sweeney (R-NY), Bud Cramer (D-AL).

Additional Resources Congressional Directory http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=PG03G34&f=WU04G06&t=e

Update: Good news. The amendment was defeated.

More Thought Crime in Britain
Topic: Judicial Tyranny
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From BBC News:

New religious hate laws unveiled

The home secretary wants to criminalise inciting religious hatred.

Inciting religious hatred is to be made a criminal offence under plans unveiled by Home Secretary David Blunkett.

The government failed to get laws introducing the offence passed by Parliament in the wake of the US terror attacks in 2001.

In a speech in London, Mr Blunkett revived the proposals.

He said he was returning to the plans as there was a need to stop people being abused or targeted just because they held a particular religious faith.

Will these new laws be used to punish the hatred spewed by UK Islamic groups such as Al Muhajiroun? No chance. Western civilization phobia is not considered a problem in Britain, but "Islamophobia" is.

Islamophobia fear

"Extending anti-discrimination law is only worthwhile if we actually change the processes on the ground," he said in a keynote speech to left-leaning think tank the Institute of Public Policy Research.

Earlier he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the legislation would not curb people's right to express their view of other people's religions.

"The issue is not whether you have an argument or discussion or whether you are criticising someone's religion. It's whether you incite hatred on the basis of it," he said.

There is already an offence of inciting racial hatred but this does not offer protection if someone is being targeted because of their religion.

The government is worried in particular about discrimination against Muslims.

The home secretary believes the law change would help tackle religious extremists who preach against other religions.

And the material difference between "criticizing" a religion and "preaching against" it is . . . what? Imagine the havoc judges and prosecutors could wreak, armed with a law containing this kind of ambiguous language. And, once again, don't imagine it can't happen here in the US.

FMA Vote Next Week
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

An alert from Focus on the Family's CitizenLink Daily Update:

**Contact Your Senators Now!**

The Senate will take up the Federal Marriage Amendment
(FMA) next week and your help is needed. There are still
senators who have either not committed themselves, or who
have indicated they will oppose this highly important
legislation. The FMA is a proposed amendment to the U.S.
Constitution which will help to protect marriage by
defining it as between one man and one woman.

For information on the Federal Marriage Amendment, and how
to contact your senators, please see the "Federal Marriage
Amendment Action Center."

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0031537.cfm

For information on special events scheduled for this Sunday, visit the Protect Marriage Sunday and We Vote Values websites.

FBI Honors US Enemies
Topic: Homeland Security
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In a recent article, The FBI Loses Its Way, Daniel Pipes Observes:

It's time to worry when the Federal Bureau of Investigation, America's national police agency, consistently cannot figure out who's friend and who's foe in the war on terror.

The bureau's record of honoring the wrong American Muslims captures this problem.

• In February 2001, it promoted Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, a special agent who rejected a counterterror assignment on the grounds that "a Muslim does not record another Muslim."
  
• In May 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller had his spokesman call the American Muslim Council "the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States," despite its record of helping fund-raise for terrorism. Today, the AMC's long-time leader sits in jail and the organization is virtually defunct.
  
• In September 2003, the FBI nearly bestowed its Exceptional Public Service Award on Imad Hamad of Detroit, saved from this embarrassment by columnist Debbie Schlussel, who exposed Hamad in the New York Post as someone who "supports terrorism and [who] was himself a suspected terrorist."

A few weeks ago, the bureau did it again, honoring Marwan Kreidie, a Philadelphia activist, with its Community Leadership Award for his being "very helpful to the FBI office," and specifically for his efforts "in identifying, preventing and disrupting acts of terrorism." Celebrating Kreidie raises deep concerns about the FBI's continuing inability to understand the war it is fighting.

Pipes goes on to delineate the myriad condemnations Kreidie has heaped upon US anti-terrorism efforts, including allegations of "assaults on human rights" perpetrated by President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft..

This is scary stuff. The country's leading law enforcement agency has shown a consistent patten of rewarding those who attack us. It is clear a State Department mentality, one of appeasement and naive diplomacy, has overtaken the FBI. If you would like to express your opposition to such policy, you can contact the FBI here, and use our Take Action page to copy President Bush, your Senators and Representative.

Kerry's Abortion Hypocrisy
Topic: Election / Voting
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In today's Washington Update, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins makes an excellent point:

Sen. John Kerry has selected a vice presidential running mate whose Senate record mirrors his own. Both John Kerry and John Edwards have a zero percent rating from FRC, and a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, and both men have a history of opposing judicial nominees simply because of their deeply held religious beliefs. As recently as this weekend, Sen. Kerry stated that his personal belief that life begins at conception should not keep him from serving as President because it does not influence his public policy record. However, both he and Sen. Edwards have repeatedly refused to extend that same courtesy - the presumption that one's religious beliefs shouldn't disqualify him from public service - to countless judicial nominees who happen to be pro-life. Today the U.S. Senate will hold a vote on judicial nominee Leon Holmes. Mr. Holmes has been attacked by Kerry and Edwards' Democratic colleagues not because of a spotty judicial record, but rather simply because he holds private, Christian beliefs. If Sen. Kerry is such a defender of the ability to harbor private beliefs without allowing them to impact public decisions, he should call off his colleagues who are bashing Mr. Holmes as if he is unable to do the same. If Catholic beliefs do not disqualify John Kerry from being a U.S. President, those same beliefs shouldn't disqualify Mr. Holmes from becoming a federal judge.

Additional Resources:

Confirmation of Arkansas Judge

http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=AL04G01&f=WU04G03&t=e

The update links to a CapWiz-type form you can use to lobby your senators in support of Mr. Holmes.

Thought Crime in Britain
Topic: Judicial Tyranny
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Back in January, I and many others blogged the plight of BBC chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk, who faced prosecution for the crime of accurately describing the Arab world in a Sunday Express opinion piece. Finally, a decision has been made that Kilroy-Silk will not be charged.

The The Crown Prosecution Service seems really, really depressed over their inability to throw Mr. Kilroy-Silk in jail for his criminal thoughts. Well, maybe next time.

No charge for Kilroy-Silk over anti-Arab piece

Fri July 02, 2004 05:54 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Robert Kilroy-Silk, the former talk show host and now European Parliament member for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), will not be charged over a newspaper article condemning Arabs. [Ed. Note: Typical Reuters editorializing. The article, in fact, does not "condemn Arabs," but condemns Arab regimes and Arabs who loathe the West. Kilroy-Silk clarified this at the time of the controversy.]

The Crown Prosecution Service said on Friday it had advised police that no action should be taken over the article, published in January. . . .

"I acknowledge that many people found this article shocking and abusive and were deeply insulted by it," said Sue Taylor of the Crown Prosecution Service.

"But however offensive the material might be, we are constrained by law as to what we can and cannot prosecute and in this case we have had to advise the police that a criminal offence has not been committed," she added.

A former Labour MP, the outspoken Kilroy-Silk joined UKIP after losing his chat show and led the party to their best-ever results in last month's European elections.

The party is pledged to pulling Britain out of the European Union.

Since I know nothing about Kilroy-Silk's opinions on other issues, I can neither endorse or condemn them. But just imagine what it must have been like, waiting six months to learn whether you might be tried and jailed for the transgression of publishing your verifiable, fact-based opinions.

And while you're imagining that, don't imagine it can't happen here.

Criminalizing Thought
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

CitizenLink Daily Update reports:

Swedish Pastor Jailed For Preaching Against Homosexuality

It has happened -- a pastor in Sweden, speaking from the
pulpit the truth about homosexuality, is going to jail,
Ecumenical News International reported.

Under a law against incitement, Pastor Ake Green, a member
of the Pentecostal movement, was sentenced to a month in
prison for describing homosexuality as "abnormal -- a
horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society" in a
sermon. His words offended some homosexuals.

Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish federation
for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights believes
that religious freedom should not be used "as a reason to
offend people" and agrees with the sentence.

As one who heard the reports said, "I guess that shows the
true face of gay tolerance -- (which is) intolerance."

Let's, for the sake of argument, say that this pastor's beliefs about homosexuality are morally wrong. The fact remains that he was jailed not for committing any crime against homosexuals but simply for having and expressing these ideas. Europe is full of university professors who view the traditional nuclear family as an evil, oppressive institution. Will any of them be prosecuted for their hateful ideas? London is home to a nest of vipers who venerate Osama bin Laden and display posters celebrating the 9-11 murder-suicide-hijackers. Will this group be prosecuted for its active incitement to violence? The answer in both cases is: Not bloody likely.

It is clear that soon, throughout Europe, it will be a crime to criticize homosexual practice. The same can happen in the US, and the recent Ted Kennedy-sponsored hate crimes amendment to the defense authorization bill, now headed for a House/Senate conference committee hearing, represents a major step in this process of codifying the concept of thought crime in American law.

If homosexual activists refrain from harming others, they are entitled to our tolerance. But they are not entitled to control of our thoughts. Use our Take Action page to ask your Senators and Representative to support removal of the Kennedy/Smith hate crimes legislation from the defense authorization bill.

Porn and Political Speech
Topic: Judicial Tyranny
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Today's Wall Street Journal editorial page has some fine observations on the Supreme Court's twisted logic concerning free speech:

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the Supreme Court seems to be providing more First Amendment protection to pornography than to political speech?

This seems to be a fair question following the Court's decision this week to frown upon, for the third time in eight years, a Congressional law attempting to protect minors from sexually explicit material on the Internet. In contrast, the same Court was only too happy last year to endorse the substantial limits on political speech that were part of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform. Somehow we doubt this is what the Founders had in mind in passing the Bill of Rights.

And while pornographers have free access to your children, clergy do not:

School Officials Censor Biblical Views on Homosexuality

(AgapePress) - The Windsor Locks (Connecticut) School District has caved in to the demands of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union (CCLU), which recently threatened the district with an injunction if its officials allowed local clergy to give a biblical presentation on homosexuality at Windsor Locks High School.

This past May, Windsor Locks School District had permitted a group called the Stonewall Speakers to visit the high school and promote the homosexual lifestyle. Representatives of the Stonewall Speakers claim their organization was not there to encourage students to pursue homosexuality or lesbianism as a lifestyle, but to discourage bigotry and violence by dispelling myths about homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people.

Still, some local clergy and members of the public felt the pro-homosexual presentation needed to be balanced, and the school district agreed to allow a group to come into the school and present a religious perspective on the issue. However, when the CCLU threatened legal action, district officials decided to cancel the planned clergy presentation.

GetTheKidsOut.org
Topic: Education Monopoly
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

A new, highly useful and delightfully named website, GetTheKidsOut.org (a project of the Alliance for Separation of School & State) offers this mission statement:

Assist Christians to work within their own denominations to alert parents of the staggering loss of faith and morals in children who attend the officially neutral "public schools," and help them find ways to move children into Christian education, whether in campus schools or homeschooling. . . .

You can use us as a clearinghouse to find others in your denomination who are alarmed about the loss of youth to the world. You will find on this website a growing collection of resolutions and other ideas you can adapt for your own use.

I was particularly impressed with the array of alternative schooling topics offered at this Alliance link. They include "Homeschooling," "Homeschooling resources for parents with limited time," "Private schooling," Scholarships," "Alternatives to private or homeschooling," and "Online schooling."

And Recently in the News:

Reason number 1,152 to get the kids out: 4.5M Kids Victims of School Sex Misconduct [Hat tip: E-Involved].

Final Push Before FMA Vote
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

An alert from the Family Research Council:

For the past several months we've repeatedly asked you to contact your Senators. The reason is not only because we know that being inundated with constituent calls and emails is effective in changing the way an elected official votes, but also because in almost every meeting we have on Capitol Hill we're told that Senators are not hearing from "the people." As you know, the Senate will hold a vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting marriage during the week of July 12th, and it is vital that all of us do all that we can in advance of that pivotal test for the amendment.

On our website, we've listed the names of the Senators we consider to be "high priority," meaning we think your pressure can make a difference in the way these Senators vote. Please look over the list to see if your Senator is on it. If so, with just one click you'll see all their contact information, including phone numbers for their district offices which are particularly useful now that Senators are home for the July 4th holiday. Please - go to the link below and do your part today.

Senators on the "High Priority" Contact List (Re-election Information Included) http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=AL04F06&f=WU04F25&t=e

Your Tax Dollars at Work: Killing Chinese Fetuses
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

An alert from Focus on the Family's CitizenLink:

New Effort to Fund UNFPA in Offing

Liberal lawmakers are once again trying to funnel your tax dollars to an organization some say finances forced abortions in China.

The House International Relations Committee will attempt next week to restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), a group that has been charged with using your tax dollars to promote forced abortion in China.

Sarah Craven, a spokeswoman for the UNFPA, said she is hopeful the United States will restore the funding.

"The U.S. is a leader in population and family planning and . . . is the largest bilateral provider of family planning assistance throughout the world," Craven said. "So we see the U.S. as a leader in this area and we would hope to once again receive their funding and their support."

But Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute said funding UNFPA is a bad idea.

"They've been involved in China's 'one child' policy from the beginning," Mosher said. "This is a policy that involves forced abortion, forced sterilization and forced contraception. It's one that the American people would not want us to be funding and that the Bush administration has made a very wise decision not to fund."
A 2002 letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell to Congress, in fact, said the UNFPA had provided computers and vehicles to the Chinese government to enforce China's family-planning policy. He also said that UNPFA violated a 1985 law banning the United States from giving money to agencies involved in forced abortion or sterilization.

Michael Schwartz, vice president of governmental relations at Concerned Women for America, said the committee vote to restore funding via amendment sponsored by Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., will be extremely close.

"If Lowey has her way, we'll be faced with another crisis," Schwartz said, "a showdown between Congress and the president on whether the United States should begin to export abortion. We've never done that."

Schwartz said people need to get in touch with their representatives in Congress to let them know they support the Bush administration policy of refusing to fund any organization involved in coerced abortion or sterilization.

You would think that even the most strident pro-choicers would be against abortion by force, but for some there is just no such thing as a bad abortion. Population control may, in certain nations, and by legitimate contraceptive methods, be a noble pursuit, but all civilized people ought to agree it should not be achieved by this kind of coercion.

The alert includes a link to the CitizenLink Action Center, for assistance in asking your Representative to oppose any action to restore U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund.

Sex Ed and Cooties
Topic: Education Monopoly
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In a June 24th essay for the BreakPoint website, Marcia Segelstein recounts what she describes as her "through-the-looking-glass" experiences with the Education Monopoly:

An assembly is planned for the elementary grades called "Cootie Shots." Its aim, parents were told, is to present an anti-bullying message. "Cootie Shots" is a series of theatrical skits developed by Fringe Benefits, a coalition of theater activists whose self-described aim is "to build bridges between gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) youth and their straight peers, teachers and parents." Parents were not informed of that little tidbit. Fortunately, the internet does have its uses. Finding the connection, I thought it prudent to enquire whether this "anti-bullying" program might have any content related to homosexuality. (Heaven forbid we might actually be advised about any such material without having to ask!) Ah, yes, just one skit: "The Duke Who Outlawed Jelly Beans."

Well, as you can probably guess, the Duke does more than outlaw jellybeans. He issues this royal proclamation: "Hear ye, hear ye: Since I grew up with just one mother and one father, and I turned out so well, I proclaim that this arrangement will work best for everyone. In one week any children who have too many mothers or fathers, or not enough, will be thrown into the dungeon." Anna and her two "mommies," to whom we've already been introduced are, naturally, horrified. They realize that Anna's friend, Nicholas, will be at risk since he has two "dads." And then there's Gaston, who lives with his grandparents, and poor Scarlett, who "just has one mom and no dads." In the end, the wise children prevail, and the Duke leaves town utterly humiliated.

The skit is hardly what you'd call subtle. But more importantly, it has nothing to do with bullying. It has to do with mocking the notion that children fare best when raised with their two married parents. Once upon a time that notion was simple common sense. Fortunately, since common sense no longer prevails, we have scientific studies that reinforce that notion instead.

Mrs. Segelstein lives in Connecticut. And it's a good thing she does, since in Pennsylvania writing a hateful phrase such as "children fare best when raised with two married parents" could be a crime. (See "More Thought Crimes Legislation" below.)

Be sure to read the whole piece, and learn what she discovered at a screening of a video to be shown to fifth graders: "What Kids Want to Know About Sex and Growing Up." (Hint: Dr. Dobson, it ain't.)

Atomic Ayatollahs
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In a recent piece in heritage.org's commentary section, the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes does a fine job of summarizing the Iranian Islamic Bomb crisis:

If the international community lets Iran go nuclear, the U.N.'s Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) would become a laughingstock, and no longer serve as a deterrent to nuclear proliferation. (Over the weekend, Tehran hinted, via a regime-friendly newspaper, at withdrawing from the NPT.)

A nuclear Iran would undermine stability in region, threatening the new Iraqi and Afghan governments and giving Syria and the Saudis strong incentive to go nuclear, too.

And Iran has long-range missiles on the drawing table -- so NATO, Israel and the United States will become at risk.

It seems obvious: The Iranians aren't interested in negotiations -- they're interested in having the bomb.

His conclusion is, unfortunately, not so perceptive:

. . .It's time for the U.N. Security Council to insist on broad, multilateral economic sanctions. . . .

We've tried to counter Iran's nuclear intentions through mommy-coddling diplomatic means for long enough: That approach has failed miserably.

It's time we all recognize this fact and agree to take the matter to the Security Council for more drastic action.

I'm no Heritage Foundation scholar, but something tells me UN sanctions will be, to put it kindly, less than effective. You'll recall Saddam managed to build a raft of palaces and remain quite fat and happy while under sanctions.

The ballistic sanctions the Israelis rained down on his Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 worked quite well, however.