Slice Some Pork From The Transportation Bill

Another Taxpayer Action Alert from Citizens Against Government Waste:

We need your help today to stop the House of Representatives from enacting a pork-laden, budget-busting transportation bill!

President Bush requested $256 billion in transportation spending in his fiscal 2005 budget, but the House is considering passing a six-year surface transportation bill that would cost as much as $375 billion--and include an increase in the federal gas tax! . . . [T]ell your U.S. Representative today to display fiscal responsibility and stick to the President's original $256 billion proposal.

The Senate has already passed a $318 billion transportation bill that, among other things, would adjust the tax code to increase revenue--in clear violation of the President's requirements that any highway bill under consideration should not increase taxes or add to the deficit, or resort to accounting gimmicks that hide its true costs.

Now, we must hold the line in the House.

Transportation bills have traditionally been vehicles for Members of Congress to bring home the bacon, and many lawmakers are squealing at the spending restraints imposed by the President. But with the nation facing a $521 billion deficit this year, taxpayers simply can't afford any more special-interest projects. What's more increasing the gas tax, which currently stands at 18.4 cents per gallon, at a time of record-high gas prices will only strain the economy and punish hard-working taxpayers.

Click here to tell your U.S. Representative to exercise fiscal restraint and oppose any transportation bill that exceeds the President's budget request. Transportation lobbyists and their allies in the House will not give up easily on passing a transportation bill that will bust the budget with special interest earmarks. Please act today!

Bonus Links:

For another in the series of great moments in public education, click here .

If you haven't already read Charles Krauthammer's speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Democratic Realism, do!

Recently, Brent Bozell had some poignant fun with critics of The Passion.

(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 New Attack on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Family News in Focus reports on what are now two attempts to attach a poison pill amendment to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is likely to come up for a vote in the Senate next week, and it's still anybody's guess what final form it will take by the time that happens.

That's because liberal senators, while promising not to filibuster the legislation, are expected to introduce a pair of amendments that would water it down. One comes from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and would remove the bill's key provision -- classifying a preborn child as a victim in an attack on his or her mother. Feinstein's proposal would merely increase penalties in such attacks -- while not recognizing the child in the womb as a separate victim.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said what Feinstein hopes to do runs counter to what Americans want done.

"We believe, and over 80 percent of the public believes, that that criminal is claiming two victims, the mother and the unborn child," he explained. "So there's a great fundamental divide between the Feinstein amendment and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act."

The other provision liberals hope to add to the bill has been offered by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. It is an attempt to promote domestic violence programs by requiring employers to spend millions on them, and it does so by spelling out 157 pages of procedural issues.

"This huge bill is being offered as an amendment only for the purpose of trying to mire the Unborn Victims bill in a host of unrelated issues and to get it into a procedural dead end," Johnson said. "Therefore, we regard a vote for the Murray Amendment as a vote to kill the bill."

Jayd Henricks, director of congressional relations for the Family Research Council, said the votes on the amendments are going to be close.

The article contains a link to the CitizenLink Action Center where you can ask your senators to vote for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act but against the Feinstein and Murray amendments.

(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.)

Important California Legislation

The Traditional Values Coalition, which can at times be a little, well, shall we say, strident in their social conservatism rhetoric nonetheless has some interesting coverage of pending bills in the California legislature. Here's two noteworthy ones involving parental consent:

AB 1925 (by Assemblyman Ray Haynes-- R):

AB 1925 is a bill directly sponsored by Traditional Values Coalition. This bill is a result of our last sponsored bill from last session, AB 950.

AB 1925 would require that schools first notify and get parental permission prior to guest speakers or organizations addressing students on HIV/AIDS education.

You may recall that Senate Bill 71 was signed into law and took effect January 1, 2004 and it removed from law four parental rights provisions regarding schools and education. Our first attempt to restore those provisions back into law was through AB 950, which was killed by the Assembly Education Committee back on January 7th. AB 1925 seeks to restore the one deleted provision we mentioned above.

Currently, schools are only required to notify parents about sex Ed teachings and curriculum once at the beginning of the school year. Parents can then choose to remove their child from such teachings if they wish, but it is the duty of the parent to put that request in writing. The burden is on the parents to pro-actively review the schools sex-ed curriculum and voluntarily remove their children from questionable teachings.

But while the curriculum must be set in stone at the beginning of the year for parents to review should they wish, the issue involving a guest speaker or outside organization coming into the classroom to talk about HIV/AIDS and sexual issues is left unresolved now.

Schools no longer have to notify parents about who comes into the classroom to give lectures, show films or talk about sexual issues. AB 1925 seeks to force schools to give parents fair notice before speakers and organizations address their child in the classroom.

AB 1925 is currently in the Assembly Education Committee and may be heard on March 31st.

SB 1221 (by Senator Bill Morrow--R):

SB 1221 is another well-deserved, common sense bill aimed at restoring parental consent in the schools.

Currently, schools are allowed to remove a child from school to seek and obtain confidential medical services and counseling without parental knowledge. The only notification the schools are required by law to give is the simple statement at the beginning of the year that their child can be removed for medical services if the child requests it. There no is right for parents to object or even be informed of their child's actions.

TVC's good friend, Senator Bill Morrow of Oceanside, is seeking to reverse this absurd trampling of parental discretion.

SB 1221 would require schools to "attempt to notify the pupil's parent or guardian of the absence."

Senator Morrow's bill is yet another attempt to restore into law common sense parental rights provisions that have been eroded over time by the liberal legislature.

SB 1221 is currently assigned to the Senate Education Committee, however no hearing date has been set.

The page for this and several other bills has comprehensive links for contacting the various legislators and committees.

(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.)

High Ratings for The Waltons

No, not Mama, Daddy, John-Boy, Mary-Ellen and the rest of the brood. We're talking Helen, Alice, Jim, John and Rob-- heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune. USA Today reports:

Wal-Mart's founders transformed U.S. business. Now they are taking on a very different subject: the nation's public schools. The Waltons -- the USA's richest family -- have quietly become top philanthropists in education reform, including controversial charter-school and school-voucher causes.

. . . [T]he Waltons' giving could soar to as much as $1 billion a year as they shift more riches to charity. How much more? John Walton, one of founder Sam Walton's four children, says the family expects to donate as much as 20% of its $100 billion in Wal-Mart stock.

The shift could spur far-reaching education reform, say experts on philanthropy and education. "That could totally transform public education in this country. It's a mighty thumb on the scale," says Chuck Collins, co-founder of Responsible Wealth, a group critical of the influence of the megarich.

. . . Allies say the family's giving is injecting competition between public and private schools that will produce better-educated children, and so reduce unemployment, crime and other social ills. . . .

The education oligarchy's apparatchiks are in agony over this of course:

Critics say the Waltons could . . . weaken public schools by encouraging the flow of tax dollars to less-regulated charter schools and to religious and other private schools through vouchers. The prospect of the Walton billions is "alarming," says Marc Egan, head of anti-voucher efforts at the National School Boards Association.

Critics, such as People for the American Way, say charter schools are sometimes weaker than public schools because they are less regulated in areas such as student testing and teacher certification.

. . . [John] Walton says critics of vouchers and other "school-choice" programs aren't paying enough attention to dropout rates among inner-city high school students.

"They're choosing the streets over a school that apparently doesn't work for them," Walton says. "If choice destroys the public system, then why are we so sanguine about the choices those kids make?"

To express your appreciation for his family's efforts to bring free-market competition to the scandal that is the public schools system, contact John T. Walton at this address:

John T. Walton, Director
c/oWal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Bentonville, Arkansas 72716-8611

I used the opportunity to also put in a good word for charitable giving in support of home schooling, which growing evidence indicates is the best environment for educating happy and successful citizens.

Update: And here's a new article with some of that evidence.

(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.)

Support Lifetime Savings Accounts and Retirement Savings Accounts

From Americans for Tax Reform:

LSAs and RSAs can allow more Americans to save more tax- free!

In President Bush's budget proposal, he's asking that new LSAs be allowed to be used for any type of savings, allow an individual to contribute up to $5,000 a year and make penalty-free withdrawals at any time. Participants will be able to save for any purpose without being double-taxed on savings, including for their children's education, home purchasing, healthcare needs, or to start their own business. Retirement Savings Accounts, or RSAs, will allow individuals to contribute up to $5,000 a year (in addition to the amounts contributed to an LSA) and works like a Roth IRA. The proposal greatly simplifies existing IRA rules, which will encourage more savings and hence be used to supplement social security and labor earnings in retirement.

The double tax on savings coupled with complex rules has led to a significant decline in America's personal savings rate. Removing the discriminatory double tax on savings and simplifying the existing rules will increase the number of savers, enhance the personal savings of working families, and bolster the productive capacity of America's economy. With the economic expansion set to take off, it is imperative that Congress immediately pass this proposal to ensure families can save throughout the entire expansion.

The ATR Action Alert has a Capwiz utility with a sample message you can customize to send an e-mail or print a hard copy letter.

(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.)

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.)