Intolerance of Parental Rights

Family News in Focus reports on the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) effort to usurp parental authority and propagandize in public schools:

. . . The public school activist arm of the homosexual community recently published a curriculum called "At Issue: Marriage," available as a free download off of its Web site for use in public school classrooms. The curriculum presents a biased, extreme activist view of marriage, proposing radical views that leave only one conclusion for students and teachers to reach: same-sex marriage must be instituted.

Even more disturbing than the conclusion the curriculum promotes, though, is the assumption its writers make about the role of parents in the education process. The curriculum guide starts by quoting an ad placed by conservative readers in the largest newspaper in Iowa. It read:

"When educators subject students to politicized lessons about homosexuality, they infringe upon the rights of parents to provide moral instruction to their children. I pledge, therefore, to oppose the promotion of homosexuality as normative in America's public schools, recognizing that this issue is best discussed at home."

The first sentence of the curriculum, following right after the quote above, reads: "It was a dispiriting moment when Iowa's largest newspaper printed this statement . . . calling upon Presidential candidates to pledge their opposition to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) equality." The next statement is stunning: "Though the pledge reflects a decidedly anti-gay stance on a wide range of LGBT civil rights issues, the real danger exists in its underlying affront to democracy." Let's be clear. What the GLSEN curriculum writers are saying here is that they expect to have access to influence our children in the name of democracy.

But what exactly is democratic about circumventing state's curriculum approval processes by issuing this propaganda directly to teachers via the Internet? And make no mistake, "At Issue: Marriage" is pure propaganda. It is revisionist in its presentation of the civil rights movement. It is poor sociology -- statistics are inaccurate and anecdotal, and conclusions are made with no reference to what most researchers are finding on the dangerous experiment that same-sex families is to children.

. . . It's clear from this curriculum that GLSEN understands -- perhaps better than we Christians do -- that this is a battle for our children. The authors smugly note, in discussing Proposition 22 in California, which defined marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman, that "Every march for equality is three steps forward and one step backward, and this is a step backward. But the vast majority of voters under 40 voted against the initiative. This is a generational issue. We're patient."

This effort is another example of how the gay agenda has transitioned from seeking tolerance to an aggressive campaign of demanding forced acceptance and celebration of a lifestyle incompatible with traditional Judeo-Christian teaching.

It's sort of an education version of the Left's popular strategy of legislating from the judicial bench. Someone is going to vote on whether same-sex marriage will be the law of the land. The question is whether the vote will be cast by a handful of judges or by all the American people through their legislators. The people overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage, therefore its proponents, who know what is "right" for all of us, are attempting to usurp the process by judicial fiat.

In this instance, GLSEN knows what is "right" for your children, and your assertion of parental rights is undemocratic and anti-"civil rights." Parents teaching "wrong" values to their own children will not be tolerated.

Focus on the Family asks readers to take action by writing their local school districts and voicing opposition to use of the GLSEN curriculum. The article also includes links to an opinion survey and other articles from the Focus on Social Issues website.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

A Spending-Slashing Budget Resolution

An alert from Citizens Against Government Waste:

The U.S. House of Representatives is right now beginning consideration of the fiscal 2005 Federal Budget. House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) has proposed a budget resolution that would halve the budget deficit in four years by freezing non-defense, discretionary spending at fiscal 2004 levels and banning earmarks for pork-barrel projects for one year.

. . . Nussle's fiscal 2005 budget resolution . . . would hold the line on spending, avoid new tax increases, and make the recently passed tax cuts permanent.

Prohibiting any pork-barrel spending, new entitlements, and budget waivers and freezing or cutting spending on government programs wherever possible are not just prudent, but essential measures to restore fiscal discipline in Washington and eliminate the tide of red ink.

The CAGW have set up a handy e-mail utility here, complete with a sample letter you can customize.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons, Part 6
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism

On Tuesday Peter Brookes, a senior fellow for National Security Affairs at the Heritage Foundation wrote of Iran's nuclear weapons cat-and-mouse game with the International Atomic Energy Agency:

The question is: What to do?

The administration clearly has its hands full with Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and terrorism. Dealing with Iran would be serious business as well. And there is a reasonable argument for letting the EU Three's position of gentle coercion play out a bit more.

Problem is, time is on Iran's side. The longer they can keep the program going, the more progress the mullahs can make toward the bomb.

The prospects for keeping the Iranian Pandora's box closed look pretty bleak. The EU's agreement appears doomed to failure. The Iranian case is particularly troubling because of the regime's sponsorship of international terrorism and its close alliance with Syria, another nuclear aspirant.

Iran has been threatened before about being dragged before the Security Council, but threats demonstrably didn't win compliance. So it's probably high time to actually involve the council.

Multilateral sanctions might do the trick. Economic sanctions can be painful and have worked in the past. Libya is (seemingly) turning over a new leaf because of them. North Korea is begging for aid because of sanctions. And sanctions clearly hurt Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs.

But continued threats, without genuine action, are as meaningless as Iran's promises have proven to be.

Keeping the bomb in the box is a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.

Yet Tuesday night the AP reported the US has acquiesced to European pressure and will attempt to strike cold fear into the mad mullahs with, brace yourself, a not-so-sternly-worded resolution:

Accepting painful compromises, the United States agreed with key European nations on Tuesday to tone down criticism of Iran for its continued nuclear secrecy.

Washington also accepted a draft resolution containing some praise of Tehran's willingness to open its nuclear programs to outside inspection.

Both sides signed off on the draft document prepared for a high-level conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency after days of grueling negotiations aimed at finding the proper mix of praise and criticism.

The United States insists Iran is interested in making nuclear weapons. Washington wanted the meeting to condemn Iran for not fully living up to pledges to reveal all past and present nuclear activities while keeping open options for future involvement by the U.N. Security Council.

France, Germany and Britain, however, wanted to focus on Iranian cooperation with the IAEA that began only after the discovery last year that Tehran had plans to enrich uranium and secretly conducted other tests with possible weapons applications over nearly two decades.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters negotiations continued on final language. The text of the document still must be approved by all 35 nations of the IAEA board of governors.

Permit me to speak to the IAEA and European and US leadership in the words of the beleaguered history teacher Mr. Hand in Fast Times at Ridgemont High: "Are all you people on dope???"

Does anyone with two brain cells to rub together believe for one moment that Iran will be moved to compliance by anything less than sanctions and the open threat of military action? Does anyone believe that, once the ruling lunocrats have stalled long enough to complete their Manhattan project, they will hesitate for one second before using their shiny new nuclear Islamic bomb(s) on the US and/or Israel?

This problem will be solved only by pervasive, intrusive inspections throughout Iran, something the existing regime will never permit while it has the quite rational hope of achieving nuclear capability by exploiting the IAEA's seemingly infinite patience.

Use our Take Action page to advise President Bush and your representatives of your support for stern measures, including sanctions and military action, to enforce a no-nascent-nukes policy toward Iran.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

A Solution to Deficit Spending, Maybe

From the National Taxpayers Union:

Most Americans are well aware that Members of Congress love to spend other people's money. Rep. Nathan Deal and Sen. Zell Miller have introduced bills with teeth, H.R. 3736 and S. 2041, that will give Members of Congress personal financial incentives to be more responsible with taxpayer dollars.

Rather than creating a complex and arcane web of parliamentary schemes to bring down the deficit as Congress has done -- with little success -- in the past, this bill will implement an automatic five percent pay reduction and void the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for all Members of Congress if deficit spending occurs. If the deficit spending continues, the pay cut will be increased to ten percent and Member COLAs will continue to be voided for every consecutive fiscal year that expenditures exceed revenues. Pay reductions would be capped at a maximum of ten percent. To shield Congressional salaries against war or terrorism-induced deficit spending, an exclusionary provision is included in the legislation.

This pro-active bill is an important way to link Congressional pay to actual performance -- something that is done all too rarely in Washington. Taxpayers across the country already understand the importance of being paid to perform their jobs well because so many Americans do it every day. If the country is ever to see the light at the end of the deficit-spending tunnel, innovative solutions are essential. The Fiscal Responsibility Act provides a needed mechanism for change.

I like the pay-for-performance concept in principle, but I read both the Senate and House versions of this bill and saw nothing that would preclude tax increases to eliminate the deficit. Such a provision would be a necessary component to make this a fiscally responsible law. I suppose that's why God created amendments.

You can edit the National Taxpayers Union's sample message to express support for a version of the bill which includes a tax increase prohibition or spending cap.

You can search and read all pending bills at this Library of Congress site.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Action Needed NOW on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Focus on the Family CitizenLink reports:

Unborn Victims of Violence Act Needs Your Support

Bill that would recognize preborn babies injured in attacks on their mothers must not be weakened.

Nearly 30 states have laws that allow a separate penalty when a preborn child is injured or killed in the commission of a crime against the mother. It is California's "fetal homicide" law, in fact, that enabled prosecutors to charge Scott Peterson with two counts of murder in connection with the deaths of his wife and preborn son.

Unfortunately, if Laci and Conner Peterson's deaths had occurred during the commission of a federal crime -- like bank robbery -- Conner's death would not merit a separate charge. Currently, neither the federal criminal code nor the Uniform Code of Military Justice recognizes both victims under law. Legislation pending in Congress, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, would amend federal and military codes to recognize the "two-victim" principle.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as Laci and Conner's law, passed the House of Representatives on Feb. 26, on a vote of 254-163. It is currently pending in the Senate.

Some members of Congress oppose this legislation, claiming incorrectly that it will erode access to abortion by establishing legal rights for the preborn. Opponents are offering a weakening amendment (rejected in the House and expected to be offered in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.) that only recognizes one victim: the mother. This amendment disregards and disrespects the second victim, and Focus on the Family opposes it.

Use our Take Action page to contact both of your senators and ask them to vote for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act without the amendment.

Focus on the Family has also set up a utility for e-mailing your best wishes to Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was recently hospitalized with a severe case of gallstone pancreatitis.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Open Borders in a Time of Terror, Part 2

"There's no relationship between immigration and terrorism."

- Spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza.

"I don't think the events [of 9/11] can be attributed to the failure of our immigation laws."

- Head of the immigration lawyers' guild, one week after the attacks.

When Islamic terrorists finally achieve their dream and detonate ten nuclear devices in ten US cities, the "Cause of Death" entry on America's death certificate should read: "Stupidity, complicated by shortsightedness and apathy."

Okay, maybe that's a little harsh. But there is no question the nation is in grave danger, and in his essay Keeping Terror Out: Immigration Policy and Asymmetric Warfare, Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, tells us why the phrase "Home Front" is no longer a metaphor.

Some key points:

The enemy has penetrated nearly every element of the US immigration system by exploiting its weaknesses.

A normal level of visa scrutiny would have excluded almost all the 9/11 highjackers from entry into the US.

Every major Al-Qaeda attack or conspiracy in the US has involved at least one terrorist who violated immigration law.

Immigration control is to asymmetric warfare what missile defense is to strategic warfare, yet our immigration response to 9/11 has been piecemeal and poorly coordinated.

There is a sense that Justice and Homeland Security department bureaucrats are searching for ways to "tighten up immigration controls that will not alienate one or another of a bevy of special interest groups."

A strategic assessment of what an effective immigration-control system would look like is needed.

The most important flaw in the "visa filter" is that the State Department, with its corporate culture of diplomacy and currying favor with foreign governments, remains in charge of issuing visas.

Most illegal alien terrorists were visa "overstayers," yet the INS's statistics division declared it could no longer estimate the number of people who have overstayed their visas.

There is continued resistance to using the military to back up the Border Patrol, even though controlling the Mexican border is an important security objective.

Because of lack of space, most aliens in deportation proceedings are not detained. They receive a "run letter" instructing them to appear for deportation. To no one's surprise, 94% of aliens from terrorist-sponsoring states disappear instead.

Outrageous "sanctuary" policies instituted by cites across the country prohibit city employees, including police, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities or even inquiring as to a suspect's immigration status.

Enforcement of the 1986 prohibition against hiring illegal aliens has all but stopped.

"There is a general sense among many political leaders that enforcing the immigration law is futile and, in any case, would displease important constituencies."

Finally, Krikorian observes what ought to be obvious to all parties involved: "If our immigration system is so lax that it can be penetrated by a Mexican busboy, it can also be penetrated by an Al-Qaeda terrorist."

You can read the essay in PDF format here.

In an approach that is not only irresponsible but incredibly foolish and impractical, elected officials and government bureaucrats have persisted in avoiding actions necessary to secure our borders, in favor of their short-term goal of pleasing special interest constituencies. You would think they might at least have the common sense to recognize that nuclear devastation might adversely affect their little fiefdoms. No such luck.

Use our Take Action page to demand legislation to implement sustained, redundant and comprehensive immigration law enforcement.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

California's Reluctant Attorney General

Agape Press reports on uncertainty as to whether California Attorney General Bill Lockyer will defend California law:

Liberty Counsel and CCF [the Campaign for California Families] point out that the state's top law enforcement official was virtually silent for an entire week while the San Francisco County Clerk issued illegal marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And it was only after California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger asked Lockyer to intervene that the AG's office posted a message on its website.

According to Liberty Counsel, that message stated the AG would defend the law -- but then added that Lockyer himself is opposed to any law that "discriminates" and personally favors domestic partnerships and civil unions.

"Having remained silent when he should have acted and having publicly stated his personal opinions, Mr. Thomasson and CCF question whether the AG's office will adequately and vigorously defend California's law that state marriage is between one man and one woman," a Liberty press release says.

If you live in California, use this page to contact Lockyer and remind him of his obligation to vigorously represent his client, California's voters, who spoke clearly on this issue by overwhelmingly approving California's Defense of Marriage Act in March 2000.

This week Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer each offered interesting (and in one case quite provocative) analyses on the same-sex marriage issue.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Save The Bush Tax Cuts

An important alert from Americans for Tax Reform:

Without Congressional action, every tax cut of the last three years will expire, beginning this year!

With every Democratic candidate for president running on a platform of raising your taxes, the future of conservatives' hard won victories over the last three years is more in jeopardy than ever.

If Congress does not act to make the tax cuts permanent... America will see an automatic tax increase of $2 trillion, the biggest in American history!

And we would all have to say "goodbye" to our new economic recovery.

The alert has a utility for e-mailing your representatives, and includes a sample message you can customize.

Bonus Links:

If you live in Arizona or Utah, here is an alert on the Federal Marriage Amendment from the Traditional Values Coalition.

If you live in North Carolina (and even if you don't) Mike S. Adams has information on UNC-Greensboro you will not want to hear, but should.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Save Western Civilization in Schools

The Traditional Values Coalition reports:

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo (R) is introducing a resolution on March 3 that calls upon Congress to support the idea that American school children should learn and appreciate the contributions of Western Civilization.

Tancredo is introducing this resolution to spark debate over the spread of multiculturalism in public schools that denigrates the contributions that have been made by Western Civilization to ideas of liberty and prosperity.

According to Tancredo, the "Cult of Multiculturalism" has as its goal, "the elimination of the concept of America as a nation state.... The radical multiculturalists also encourage immigrants to refrain from integrating into an American mainstream."

Tancredo was recently featured on a Fox News documentary produced by Linda Vester that dealt with our nation's porous national borders and the danger this poses to our security from terrorists.

At first blush, a resolution only to "spark debate" may seem like a trivial pursuit, but wouldn't it be nice to see a national debate on the merits of Western civilization and the perils of radical multiculturalism? Won't cultural fence-sitters be enlightened by seeing a bunch of liberal reps on the House floor arguing against Western civilization?

Yes, when the objective is clarity, sparking debate is a noble endeavor.

A $30 million movie about Jesus has the multitudes pondering and polemicizing rarified subjects such as religion, art, morality, violence, anti-Semitism, even parenting. Debate is how we humans, made in the image of God and endowed with the knowledge of good and evil, refine truth from the raw material of facts. It can be a powerful agent for change.

The attention being focused on the ideas surrounding The Passion is justified, appropriate and important. If similar attention were directed toward the ideas advanced in our schools, education in this country would see long overdue reform. It's time for a serious debate on how we shape our children's minds and values.

You can read more about the resolution on Tom Tancredo's website, and use our Take Action page to ask your representatives to support it.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Fight Out-of-Control Spending With the Veto Pledge

From Human Events Online, February 27, 2004:

Has Your Representative Signed the Veto Pledge?

Rep. Chris Cox (R.-Calif.) is asking Republican House members to sign a pledge to support President Bush on any veto he casts to control government spending. Because it takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to override a veto, it would take the pledges of only 146 House Republicans (out of 228) to insure that no Bush spending-related veto is over-ridden. The Cox Pledge reads:

"Dear Mr. President: To help you control spending during the remainder of the 108th Congress, we will vote to sustain any veto you exercise on the basis that the legislation you veto would result in unnecessary spending."

One hundred members signed this pledge. The article lists Republican members' names and their position on the pledge, and provides the Capitol switchboard phone number. You can also contact your representative by e-mail or hard copy letter using our Take Action page.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Restoring Free Speech

In a recent column, George Will highlighted the bipartisan corruption spawned by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA):

A Constitutional Obscenity

Two years ago President Bush, who had called it unconstitutional, signed the McCain-Feingold bill -- furtively, at 8 a.m. in the Oval Office. The law expanded government restrictions on political speech, ostensibly to combat corruption or the ``appearance'' thereof. Bush probably signed it partly because the White House, thinking corruptly, or appearing to do so, saw re-election advantage in this fiddling with the First Amendment.

And partly because the nation's newspaper editorial writers were nearly unanimous in praise of McCain-Feingold. The editorialists' advocacy of McCain-Feingold could appear corrupt: The bill increases the political influence of unregulated newspaper editorializing relative to rival voices (parties, and candidates and their financial supporters) that are increasingly restricted.

Last December the Supreme Court said there is no serious constitutional infirmity in the law because, although the Constitution says Congress shall make ``no law'' abridging freedom of speech, Congress has broad latitude to combat corruption or its appearance. There is the appearance of corruption when a legislator's views attract contributions from like-minded people, and then the legislator acts in accordance with his and their views.

Today McCain-Feingold itself does not just appear to be corrupting. It is demonstrably and comprehensively so. . . .

Concerned Women for America recently endorsed the First Amendment Restoration Act of 2004 (H.R. 3801), which would restore free speech rights lost to the BCRA by repealing the ban on non-PAC funded issue advocacy 30 days before a primary or within 60 days of a general election. You can offer your endorsement by using our Take Action page to contact your legislators.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

More Legislation Against Judicial Tyranny

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (H.R. 3799 and S. 2082) represents the latest effort to employ US Constitution Article III, Section 2 to compel federal courts to act within their authorized jurisdiction. (See our Feb. 23 entry.) Phyllis Schlafly writes:

This legislation would clarify that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases brought against a federal, state or local government or officer for acknowledging God. The bill is in response to the dozens of cases filed nationwide asking federal judges to declare the recitation in public schools of the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it includes the words "under God," or asking that the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings or parks be held unconstitutional.

The bill's sponsors believe that federal courts lack the authority to hear such cases or render such a decision. No law bans the acknowledgment of God, and the U.S. Constitution delegates "all legislative powers" to the Congress and none to the courts.

. . . So how could a handful of activist judges in the last couple of years presume to ban the acknowledgment of God from documents, monuments, songs, expressions and practices that have been part of our culture throughout our history? The answer is that the federal courts, year by year, decision by decision, have been asserting judicial supremacy over the other branches of government, and Congress and the American people have been letting them get by with this unconstitutional power grab.

The federal courts have been systematically dismantling the architecture of our unique constitutional republic with its separation of powers. James Madison believed that the preservation of liberty depends on the separation of powers, and that "its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places."

The Constitution Restoration Act affirms the separation of powers by re-asserting the rule, which had been properly observed by federal courts for two centuries, that they have no jurisdiction to consider cases involving the acknowledgment of God. As late as 1952, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas declared: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." It is long past time for Congress to mandate that federal courts may not censor public acknowledgments of God, adding this to other "exceptions" and "regulations" to federal court jurisdiction.

This is the way the framers of our Constitution intended that Congress would, as Alexander Hamilton wrote, keep the judiciary as the "least powerful" branch of government and see to it that "judges should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty."

In a sad testament to just how far afield federal judicial philosophy has drifted, the proposed law also contains a provision prohibiting courts from relying on foreign laws, administrative rules or court decisions. That judges should apply only domestic law ought to be obvious, but five US Supreme Court judges have actually cited foreign sources, so for these "wise" jurists, the obvious must be codified.

Use our Take Action page to express to your representative and senators support for these companion bills.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

A Multi-billion-dollar Bailout

I realize pension reform is not the sexiest issue to cover, but one look at the price tag for this bailout will arouse anyone's interest. From the National Taxpayers Union:

Tell Congress to Support Pension Reforms, NOT Pension Bailouts

Legislation has passed the Senate that -- instead of providing needed reforms for America's pension system -- would provide a taxpayer funded bailout worth $16 billion. The Senate bill is nothing more than corporate welfare of the worst kind. The Wall Street Journal even editorialized on February 2, 2004 that should this legislation reach President Bush's desk, the Senate-passed bailout would be the "perfect candidate" for a his first veto. Although much of the media has ignored the pension bailout issue, taxpayers could lose more money if this legislation passes than they have from all of the recent corporate scandals combined.

You can obtain more information, and contact your representatives, here.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Throw Out the Trash TV, But Not the First Amendment

Looks like I and the good folks at Focus on the Family and the Parents Television Council part ways on this one: Cable Indecency Targeted

Legislation is being discussed that would allow the Federal Communications Commission to have jurisdiction over cable programming.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress, which continue to condemn indecency on television, have now set their sights on the cable industry, which provides a steady stream of offensive programming.

The problem is that the FCC controls broadcast television -- channels you could pick up with an antenna -- but not cable networks like MTV, Bravo and ESPN. Still, cable TV enters 85 percent of America's homes, and there are demands to include cable networks under the FCC's decency standards.

Cable industry spokesman Brian Dietz said that is not necessary.

"The cable industry doesn't feel that legislation would be necessary at this point," he said, "because cable has had a longstanding commitment to addressing parents' concerns about what their families see on television."

Filtering technology, he added, gives parents all the control they need to block offensive programming.

But Lara Mahaney, a spokeswoman for the Parents Television Council, said that's not good enough.

"For too long, the cable industry has gotten by with cheating the consumers and also giving them trashy material that they don't want," she said. "Right now, there's a call to Congress, or to at least the cable industry, to offer up packages where families don't have to take programming that they don't want."

One congressman who is listening to the call is Rep. Chip Pickering, R-Miss. He said he would support such legislation.

"I do think that we have reached a point . . . that has so outraged the country and the Congress that actions are going to be taken," he said. "I hope good legislation will be passed."

There is a huge difference between censorship of broadcast television and censorship of cable television. The public airwaves are just that: public. They have been deemed a public trust since the early days of their commercial use. Placing indecent material on the public airwaves is a lot like openly selling a pornographic magazine in a public park. The First Amendment guarantees the right to sell virtually any type of magazine in a privately-owned bookstore, but the public park belongs to all of us, and is therefore regulated.

The cable industry is more akin to the private bookstore than the public park, though the comparison is not exact. Currently the industry can force subscribers to either pay for channels they do not want or forego service altogether. No bookstore forces you to buy eight books you don't want along with two that you do. Certainly there are grounds for compelling the industry, whose service areas are de facto monopolies, to offer a la carte programming (the ability to purchase only wanted channels). If this cannot be done, the industry should be hauled before Congress and made to explain why.

But to place the cable industry under FCC jurisdiction is playing with fire. God forbid we do so, then one day get an FCC chairman with the sensibilities of the federal judiciary. We could see the Ten Commandments banned from TV as "offensive" content.

Like the bookstore, the cable industry has the First Amendment right to offer drivel and sometimes even outright evil content. We should fight for our right not to be forced to buy it, for a la carte channel sales, but we should not open the Pandora's box of government censorship. Conservatives are supposed to be against government intrusion and regulation, after all. We should strive for free market solutions whenever possible, and this is one instance where a free market, if the law facilitates it, can work.

My beliefs on social issues tend to be a conservative cocktail with a twist of libertarian. Yours may differ, but in any case you can use this link to provide your opinion to FCC Chairman Michael Powell, and our Take Action page to contact your representatives.

Bonus Link:

For centuries, theologians have debated why God allows the existence of Andy Rooney. Click here to let Andy know what you think of his nasty comments on the most recent edition of "60 Minutes."

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Fight Judicial Tyranny With H.R. 3190 and S. 1558

A September 2003 Focus on the Family CitizenLink article on the introduction of H. R. 3190 noted it would . . .

. . . prohibit federal courts from ruling on constitutional challenges to the display of the Ten Commandments, recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and the mere existence of the national motto.

U.S. Rep. Chip Pickering, R-Miss., is the chief sponsor of the Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties Act, the mirror image of a Senate bill introduced this summer by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo. Both bills point to Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution as the authority for taking certain matters out of the hands of federal courts (at least those below the Supreme Court) and reserving them as matters for individual states to decide.

Pickering's bill, H.R. 3190, is the fifth piece of legislation to seek, in some fashion, to limit the power of the judiciary to have the final say on certain issues of religious liberty. Amanda Izsak, federal issues analyst at Focus on the Family, said Pickering's bill and Allard's -- S. 1558, the Religious Liberty Restoration Act -- are the best of the bunch.

"They are the strongest and most comprehensive, stripping federal courts from the Pledge, 'In God We Trust' and the Ten Commandments," Izsak said. "No other bill addresses all three of these important religious-liberty issues."

The fact that a form of the legislation has now been introduced into each chamber of Congress, she added, "demonstrates real commitment from legislators and gives the legislation a great chance of success."

"This is wonderful news for the millions of Americans who want their religious liberties protected. This bill will halt our runaway judiciary and place fair limits on the breadth of their power."

In asking Congress to apply Article III, Section 2, the bills seek nothing that the House and Senate haven't done routinely throughout history -- and more than a dozen times during the 107th Congress.

In the 2002 Senate appropriations bill for funds to fight the war on terror, for instance, language protecting the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota from certain environmental restrictions included this note: "Any actions authorized by this section shall not be subject to judicial review by any court of the United States." The author of that language? None other than famously liberal South Dakota Democrat Tom Daschle.

Among the other laws passed that invoked Article III, Section 2 powers were the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, the Aviation Security Act and even a law to expedite construction of a World War II memorial in Washington, D.C.

Over the past four decades the federal courts have magically discovered a collection of rights and mandates in the US Constitution heretofore unknown even to those who wrote it. The power to interpret has become the power to destroy. The law has become whatever judges say it is, not what is actually in the underlying document, hence the pressing need for Congress to legislate jurisdictional exceptions under Article III, Section 2 and wrest power from the activist courts.

But I say we add an amendment to both these companion bills, one that will throw some cold water on the flaming hubris that has consumed the federal judiciary. Suppose, just for a bit of extra judicial reform, we add language prohibiting the judges from wearing robes, and from being addressed as "The Honorable" or "Your Honor." Let's mandate the title "Civil Servant" instead.

Imagine attorneys arguing their cases to a guy in a suit, addressing him as "Civil Servant Smith." Now there's a remedy for a swelled head. I suppose we could also replace the gavel with a kazoo or one of those clown horns, but maybe that will have to wait for later legislation.

Focus on the Family's Stop Judicial Tyranny site has a page with links to the bills' complete text, plus the handy Capwiz utility for contacting your representative and senators.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act

From the Family Research Council:

A judge recently rejected a motion by Scott Peterson's defense to drop double murder charges in connection with the death of his wife, Laci, and her unborn child, Conner. The California court is scheduled to begin the trial early this year and the prosecutor will push for a double murder conviction under the state's unborn victims of violence law.

The law recognizes two victims in a violent crime against a pregnant woman. While tragic, the trial will highlight the need for a similar federal law. Opponents of the legislation say that it is enough to impose stiffer penalties for a violent crime against a pregnant woman without recognizing the humanity of the unborn child. This begs the question, what makes the crime worthy of greater punishment if there is not another victim involved?

The House of Representatives will consider the Unborn Victims of Violence Act on February 26. and Senate leadership also hopes to have their vote soon. This bill would be an important step to the full recognition of the dignity of the unborn child.

Focus on the Family expects trouble for this bill in the Senate. It will be interesting to hear arguments from the Left on why an unborn child at nine months' gestation is not human. You can write in support of the bill to both your Senators and House Representative here.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Rebutting Rich

From the February 18, 2004 CitizenLink Update:

Defend Dr. Dobson, Mel Gibson and "The Passion of the Christ"

The mainstream media have not only reported, but done their best to stir up, controversy over Mel Gibson's soon-to-be-released "The Passion of the Christ." By far the nastiest of these critics has been New York Times columnist Frank Rich -- a fact well-documented by Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson.

"In one particularly nasty diatribe," Dobson wrote to Focus constituents this month, "Rich characterized Gibson as a 'Jew-baiter' and endeavored to malign the actor's elderly father, who has absolutely no connection to the movie whatsoever. Mr. Rich suggested that Gibson was 'sowing religious conflict' by not inviting a sufficient number of Jews to attend preview screenings of the movie."

These are just the latest examples of Rich's invective writings. He has, in the past, referred to Dobson as "The Godzilla of the Right" and compared him to Ku Klux Klan member David Duke.

"Rich is rabidly anti-Christian," Dobson said, "in almost every context."

If you'd like to let Rich know what you think about his efforts to denigrate Gibson and Dobson, you can find contact information for him -- including an easy-to-use e-mail form -- by clicking [Here].

I have no idea as to whether Mel Gibson's movie is any good, but I do know James Dobson is a decent man and that Frank Rich is really, really annoying. Dr. Dobson's televison and radio endeavors have 200 million viewers/listeners worldwide. A few million e-mails almost certainly will not change any of Rich's views, but at least those views will not go unchallenged. Faced with a massive response, the Times might even feel a responsibility to publish a couple of these rebuttals. It's worth a shot.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

Pull The Plug on Taxpayer-Funded Bias

[Ed. Note: Since we're daily welcoming new visitors who may not have had time to search the archive, I will from time to time be repeating entries on issues of ongoing relevance. Today, a "rerun" on public broadcasting.]

On the November 8, 2002 edition of PBS's "Now," Bill Moyers gave the following commentary:

The entire federal government -- the Congress, the executive, the courts -- is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. That agenda includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to surrender control over their own lives. It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich. It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable. And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine.

Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you like the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming. And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture...

So it's a heady time in Washington, a heady time for piety, profits and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money. Don't forget the money... Republicans out-raised Democrats by $184 million and they came up with the big prize: monopoly control of the American government and the power of the state to turn their radical ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price.

Did you enjoy that tirade? I hope so. You paid for it.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR, in 2003 received a $363 million federal appropriation, representing a whopping 45% increase in federal funding in just four years. In return for this largess, taxpayers have received, among other choice moments: obnoxious and biased screeds like the one from Moyers, a TV special that even the ultra-liberal New York Times called an "Islamic infomercial," NPR's blacklisting of premier Islamic terror expert Steven Emerson, and reporter Nina Totenberg's expressed wish that Jesse Helms' grandchildren would get AIDS. Charming.

Even if CPB's outlets had no bias, it would be superfluous. A National Taxpayers Union article puts it well:

When CPB was created in 1967 -- before the Internet, before satellite television, before VCRs or DVDs, before cable TV with hundreds of channels -- a stronger case could be made that there was a public benefit to subsidize other voices and programming. Now, with the media explosion of the past quarter century, there is little justification left for public subsidies.

Why continue to underwrite Julia Child and Emeril Lagasse when viewers can watch the Food Network (where the latter often appears)? Why subsidize history programming on PBS when viewers have the History Channel or can rent history documentaries at their local video store? Along with all the stations on free radio, listeners can tune in over the Internet to hundreds of stations all over the world. And for less than $10 a month, listeners can receive the 100 channels of XM Radio in their cars and homes.

It's time to stop feeding this left-wing dinosaur. Use our Take Action page to ask your representatives to remove all taxpayer funding from CPB and let it prove itself in the free marketplace of ideas, where dinosaurs tend to become quickly extinct.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

The Cultural Civil War

There's no better characterization of contemporary issues, and of the ideological gulf separating the Left and Right, than Dennis Prager's piece on the Second American Civil War (Part 1 and Part 2). Save these two parts to your hard drive, and when you have more than ten minutes for political devotions, choose one or more of the referenced issues for a communication to your representatives.

Today, choose from the essay the issue that concerns you most, and use our Take Action page to voice your opinion to the relevant parties.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)

A Loan to the Sharks

In a transaction the Freedom Alliance calls an "investment in ingratitude," the US plans to lend the United Nations - at what for the US would be abominable terms - $1.2 billion to refurbish the UN headquarters in New York City.

Let's look at some background on our loan applicant, shall we?

Two years ago Syria, a totalitarian, terrorist-supporting regime, replaced the US on the UN Human Rights Commission. Libya, whose dictator murdered 270 people in the Lockerbie jet bombing in 1988, was recently elected to chair the commission. Only Canada and Guatemala supported the US in opposing Libya's election; 33 nations voted for Libya, the rest abstained. Human rights violators Vietnam, China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Zimbabwe have been elected to serve on the commission.

Just prior to the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US's co-chair on the UN Commission on Disarmament was to be Iran, whose 25-year-old, Islamic lunocracy is feverishly working to obtain nuclear weapons for use against Israel and the West, in defiance of the feckless International Atomic Energy Agency.

Since 1964, the UN Security Council has passed 88 resolutions against Israel, the only democracy in the Mideast. The General Assembly has passed more than 400 such resolutions. In 1974 the UN permitted Yasser Arafat to address the General Assembly, armed with a pistol on his hip. Later the UN formed three well-staffed entities to advance the Palestine Liberation Organization's anti-Israel agenda. The UN has never censured any Arab state for actions against Israel or defiance of the 1948 resolution recognizing Israel as a state and UN member.

In 1976 Daniel Patrick Moynihan, upon leaving his role as US ambassador to the UN called it a "theater of the absurd." In December 2003 National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg observed, "You can't have a civil rights organization where Klansmen are welcomed as members; you can't have a softball team where half the players want to play basketball, and you can't have a global organization dedicated to the spread of human rights and democracy with nearly half the members representing barbaric, corrupt regimes."

In spite of multi-billion-dollar US contributions to UN efforts ($3 billion in 2003 alone), in a speech at Notre Dame University, UN Chief Ingrate Kofi Annan called the United States "one of the least generous" countries in the world.

That the US is a member of an organization that has become a weapon of authoritarian regimes is problematic enough. It certainly should not be that organization's stooge financier. The scrapping of the UN and its replacement with a League of Democracies is long overdue. Use our Take Action page to tell President Bush and your representatives to cancel the planned loan and send the UN packing, perhaps to a headquarters in one of those luxurious totalitarian states who now hold so much sway among its membership. I hear Khartoum is lovely this time of year.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)