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.)

Emboldening Our Enemies

In a February 12, 2004 FrontPage Magazine piece David Horowitz heaps righteous contempt on the Democrats' campaign against President Bush's prosecution of the Iraq phase of the war on Islamic terror: Stab in the Back

The Democrats' personal attack on the President over the war is not only imprudent; it is also unprecedented. Never in our history has a commander-in-chief been attacked on a partisan basis for a war that went well, let alone so well. Never in human history has a leader been attacked on a partisan basis for liberating a people or inducing tyrants to give up their weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats' attack on the President is an unprecedented partisan campaign over national security in a time of war. It is a campaign that apparently knows no limits, adopting tactics that are as unscrupulous as they are reckless. The commander-in-chief has been called a "deceiver," a "deserter," a "breaker of promises," a "fraud" who "concocted" the war for personal material gain, a leader who risked innocent American lives for a "lie." And all these accusations are made while the war continues! All these charges are made while terrorists plot to kill thousands of Americans with biological and chemical and possibly nuclear weapons! The Democrats' campaign is a stab in the back not only of the President but of the nation he serves and which he is sworn to protect.

No one knows what the future will bring. But no one can fail to have noticed that while the commander-in-chief has carried on an aggressive war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil. For two-and-a-half years while the commander-in-chief has waged this war that the Democrats have chosen to attack, the American people have been safe.

If the American people were now to elect a candidate who has conducted his campaign as an attack on the very war the President has fought to defend us, no one can doubt that our enemies will be encouraged and our lives will be in greater danger than before. Perhaps there have been elections with higher stakes than the one we are facing this year. But this observer can't remember one.

Read the whole essay, then use this link to let the Democratic National Committee know that more Americans will die because of their at best reckless, and at worst treasonous, tactics.

(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.)

An FBI Fifth Column?

FrontPage Magazine brings us a story with allegations that, if true, expose an outrageous threat to national security that has failed to be addressed for nearly two years. "Celebrating 9/11 at the FBI":

When linguist Sibel Dinez Edmonds showed up for her first day of work at the FBI, a week after the 9-11 attacks, she expected to find a somber atmosphere. Instead, she was offered cookies filled with dates from party bowls set out in the room where other Middle Eastern linguists with top-secret security clearance translate terror-related communications.

She knew the dessert is customarily served in the Middle East at weddings, births and other celebrations, and asked what the happy occasion was. To her shock, she was told the Arab linguists were celebrating the terrorist attacks on America, as if they were some joyous event. Right in front of her supervisor, one translator cheered:

"It's about time they got a taste of what they've been giving the Middle East."

She found out later that it was her supervisor's wife who helped organize the office party there at the bureau's Washington field office, just four blocks from the J. Edgar Hoover Building.

"This guy's wife brought the date-filled cookies for the celebration," Edmonds, 33, recalled.

At the time, the supervisor, Mike Feghali, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Beirut, was in charge of the FBI's Turkish and Farsi desks.

But he's been promoted since then, and now also runs the all-important Arabic desk, which is key to intercepting the next al-Qaida plot.

. . . Edmonds has also complained about Feghali and other Middle Eastern translators to the Justice Department inspector general. And on Wednesday, she is scheduled to give a detailed briefing to members of the 9-11 commission in a secure room here.

She claims terrorist "investigations are being compromised," and has demanded an independent probe of the FBI's language department.

"If there were, and are, persons within the language department that either intentionally prevented translation because of their agendas, or persons who were, and are, not qualified to properly translate, it is likely that terrorist communications prior to 9-11 were missed; and it is likely that current and future terrorist communications will likewise be missed," Edmonds wrote Justice's Inspector General Glenn A. Fine in a Jan. 5 letter. "I have alleged, and the FBI has confirmed (to Senate investigators), that there are in fact such persons in the language department."

Fine still has not released the findings of his internal probe, even though Edmonds first filed her complaint with his office almost two years ago. Speaking for Fine, Justice official Carol Ochoa said the investigation is "still ongoing."

"We are working hard to complete it expeditiously," she said in a Jan. 6 letter to Edmonds.

Contact the Justice Department here and let them know you will be very interested in the Inspector General's investigation findings. If this story contains any truth at all, an independent probe should have begun nearly two years ago when Edmonds filed the complaint. Concerned citizens should keep an eye on this one.

(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.)

Administer the Liberal Test

From DennisPrager.com:

Are You a Liberal?

It is my belief that about half of the Americans who call themselves liberal do not hold the great majority of positions held by mainstream liberal institutions such as the New York Times editorial page, People for the American Way, and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. So here is a test of this thesis to be given to anyone who believes he or she is a liberal. If you feel I have omitted a liberal position or have unfairly characterized any of them here, please email me. This is still a work in progress.

Dennis might be a little optimistic in his estimate that half of Americans who call themselves liberal do not hold most liberal positions. My suspicion is that there is a formidable Oprah-said-it-I-believe-it-That-settles-it contingent out there, bent on allegiance to a personality with no real thought given to ideology.

But if you have a liberal friend or acquaintance whom you think is sufficiently sincere to take a hard look at his beliefs, take a few minutes to e-mail him the link to Dennis Prager's test, and offer to discuss the results. Most people grow out of their liberalism. Maybe today you can accelerate the process for one person.

(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 Spending, More Taxes

A recent alert from the National Taxpayers Union:

Oppose Big-Spending Highway Bill and Hike in Federal Gas Tax

President Bush wants to spend $256 billion on transportation over the next six years -- too much spending with too little reform for taxpayers -- but the President's proposal looks absolutely modest compared to the House and Senate proposals to spend $375 billion and $311 billion, respectively. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman also plans to raise the gas tax by 5.4 cents per gallon and index it to inflation.

Wasteful spending, not inadequate funding, has caused the decay of our nation's infrastructure. Among other issues is the fact that Congress has increasingly "earmarked" spending for projects that favor political constituencies over economic merits. This year's Omnibus Appropriations bill contained myriad transportation earmarks, including $20 million for a light rail project in San Juan, Puerto Rico (where residents pay no income tax), $400,000 for a pedestrian "demonstration-bridge" on the campus of the University of Missouri in Rolla, and $440,000 on "developing the byway story" in Michigan.

Better alternatives to the tax-and-spend status quo include legislation sponsored by Congressmen Mark Kennedy and Adam Smith that would give drivers the freedom to utilize new roads financed by market-based user fees (known as the Freeing Alternatives for Speedy Transportation, or FAST Act). Congressman Jeff Flake has proposed separate legislation that would devolve most transportation funding decisions to the states and reduce federal gas taxes accordingly. Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave is also sponsoring a bill that would remove "Davis-Bacon" prevailing wage mandates from federal transportation projects, thus saving taxpayers 20 percent in most instances.

This link at the NTU website includes both a utility for sending a message to legislators and a sample message.

For a helpful guide to lobbying congress on any issue, check out this Citizens for a Sound Economy link.

(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, Part 2

"Comprehensive" is too weak a word to describe the Parents Television Council's website, www.parentstv.org. From the "About Us" page:

The PTC: bringing America's demand for positive, family-oriented television programming to the entertainment industry.

Now more than 850,000 members strong and growing every day, the Parents Television Council (PTC) was established in 1995 as a nonpartisan group, offering private sector solutions to restore television to its roots as an independent and socially responsible entertainment medium.

Television is the most powerful medium in the world. It can be a wonderful way to educate, inspire, and entertain America's children. Sadly it's doing the opposite and undermining the positive values parents are trying to instill in their young ones.

The PTC agrees that parents have the greatest responsibility when it comes to monitoring the viewing habits of their children, but the PTC challenges actors, writers, producers, musicians, game-makers and advertisers to get serious about the vital role they play in shaping America's culture. The gratuitous sex, foul language, and violence on TV (along with stories and dialogue that create disdain for authority figures, patriotism, and religion) are having a negative effect on children. Much of the PTC's success stems from motivating the public to voice its support of family-friendly programming to network executives, advertisers, public policy leaders, and the creative community in Hollywood.

Parentstv.org contains numerous features for both researching content and taking action. In addition to providing tools to contact elected officials, media and sponsors, the site serves as a great consumer resource. It includes a guide that profiles every sitcom and drama on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, UPN, and the WB, and those on select cable channels. Its movie reviews page comprises the work of several family-friendly reviewers, including Michael Medved. You'll never again have reason to say, "How did I get suckered into watching that piece of junk?"

Visit this link to sign up for PTC's E-Alerts on violence, sex and profanity in media. Each alert conveniently includes the tools needed contact 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.)

Tyranny in Massachusetts

Focus on the Family reports on the constitutional crisis brewing in the Bay State:

Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled 4-3 Tuesday that it will accept nothing less than marriage -- name and all -- to satisfy its November demands that the state Legislature legalize homosexual marriage.

Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, had asked the court whether S.B. 2175 -- a bill he wrote that would introduce Vermont-style civil unions to the Bay State -- would satisfy justices' demand for same-sex marriage.

The answer was no.

. . . The court's decision would seem to ensure that Feb. 11's constitutional convention will go on as scheduled. Travaglini had been considering postponing a vote on the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment (the MA and PA), which would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the state constitution, pending the court's decision on civil unions. But the fact that justices won't accept the compromise means no middle ground is left, said Rep. Vinny deMacedo, R-Plymouth.

. . . But if 101 of the state's 200 legislators vote to pass the MA and PA -- the minimum number required -- licenses still may not [sic] be issued, because the state will be in the throes of a constitutional crisis, said Evelyn Reilly, director of public policy for the Massachusetts Family Institute. The Bay State's constitutional amendment process takes two years; a proposed amendment must pass two consecutive legislative sessions, then be approved twice by a majority of the state's voters. The earliest the MA and PA could take effect is November 2006.

"If there's a vote on the amendment, that should send the signal to the SJC that they should hold off on implementing anything, because the constitution could well be amended," Reilly told CitizenLink. "For them to allow same-sex couples to have marriage licenses in May would create social chaos. Those people would be doing so at their own risk, because those licenses could be invalidated in 2006. That would certainly be the right thing to do - but this court is not known for doing the right thing."

The story includes links for e-mailing the relevant legislators, including a page with all 200 e-mail addresses for the Massachusetts legislators, some of whom get rather snippy about receiving input from out-of-state troublemakers. Don't be surprised if you receive a reply equating you with racists; I did.

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wrote a fine op-ed on this issue in the Wall Street Journal.

(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

Here's a project that would be beneficial for any household, but essential for one containing children.

All late model TVs are equipped with parental controls such as V-chip technology, to control viewing of adult-rated programs, and channel selection, to delete channels from the surfing lineup. Even many older models at least have channel selection. (My ancient, coal-fired 1989 Panasonic has it.)

Why not dust off your TV's instruction booklet and learn how to use these functions? You can then set ratings for programs to be viewed in your home and delete the channels with objectionable material. MTV and the E! channel would make excellent deletion choices. Most systems have other prime candidates as well.

If you want to be really good soldier in the war against trash TV, also drag out your last cable bill and find the company's phone number or web address, then contact them and let them know which channels you have deleted from your TV's lineup, and why you would like to see those channels removed from the cable system altogether. Every advertisement for a new channel includes a plea to "Call your cable company and ask for the XYZ Network!" Since such calls are effective for adding channels to a cable lineup, it follows that they would also be effective in getting one removed. Along with your request for deletions, suggest some good replacements.

Finally, if you want to be a hero, also contact the offending channels' management and tell them why you object to their channels' content; that you have deleted them from your personal TV system, and have asked your cable company to remove them from the system lineup.

Use this link to contact MTV Chairman Tom Freston and Sumner Redstone - CEO of Viacom, which owns MTV. You can send a message to the E! channel's customer service staff 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.)

One Breast, Two Americas

It's safe to say that, if a plebiscite on Janet Jackson's Super Bowl strip show could be held today in the US, majorities in the "red" (conservative) states would express opposition, while majorities in the "blue" (liberal) states would express support (no pun intended).

Marvin Olasky's entry in the World Magazine Blog summarizes the red state position well:

Given that America is a liberty theme park and that we've forgotten the distinction between liberty and license, gross jokes as well as enticements to adultery are inevitable, somewhere. The question is where. Christians do need to lighten up at times and not get overwrought about all the craziness around us, but why can't networks have a modicum of respect for the values of many television viewers?

Fathers and sons bond while watching football games; why must we lose the liberty to enjoy that without bombardment by crud? Our goal should be containment. Given the apparent inevitability of prostitution, why not keep it in the red-light district? Given the apparent inevitability of Internet porn, why must it be just one click away? And given Janet Jackson's apparent desire to expose her breast, why can't she do it on pay-per-view?

Conservatives understand context is crucial in sexual matters; that keeping sex private is a mark of civilization, of Man's moral obligation to behave like a human made in God's image rather than just one more animal species. This point is lost on most liberals, however. The Left's main problem with America is that we are not sufficiently "European," particularly as to public nudity and sexuality. Many on the Left will see Janet as a sort of Rosa Parks of public porn, a heroine who tried to bring enlightened European sexual culture to the benighted, backward, puritan US.

But where is Europe's early 21st Century ethic of hedonism uber alles taking it? To the same place its early 20th Century embrace of hedonism took it: enslavement to fascism. Islamo-fascism is poised to dominate Europe within 50 years, but the Europeans are too busy with six-week vacations, sex, food and nude beaches to care. The demands of aggressively opposing the growing evil in their midst would ruin all their fun. This is one of the main reasons they so hate President Bush. He's a big killjoy who wants to fight evil. Like the young pre-war Scarlet O'Hara, the Euros whine that "This war talk is ruining every party this season."

Amazingly, this is the ethic the American Left wants to bring to the US.

Ironically, sexual liberty is the only liberty the Left believe in. By their lights, the only sex that is wrong is sex that is "unsafe," but they have no tolerance for most other freedoms.

The Left has expressed, in one form or another and to one degree or another, opposition to: free markets, freedom of political speech, freedom to use tobacco, freedom to eat unhealthy food, freedom to choose a silicone breast implant, freedom to view even righteous violence in entertainment, freedom to keep earned wages, freedom to drive an SUV, freedom of school choice, freedom to publically acknowledge God, freedom to opt out of the government's retirement plan, freedom to think thoughts they find "hateful" - the list will never be complete. But I digress.

If hedonism existed as a free-standing phenomenon, perhaps it would be inconsequential, but because it inevitably results in an aversion to fighting evil (not to mention the destruction of marriage and family institutions), a European-style hedonistic ethic must be fought.

Focus on the Family has set up a utility with which you can with one click send the same e-mail to to MTV Chairman Tom Freston, CBS President Leslie Moonves and Sumner Redstone (CEO of Viacom, which owns both CBS and MTV). FCC Chairman Michael Powell correctly characterized the whole Jackson-Timberlake et al performance as "onstage copulation." Let the entertainment moguls know that such antics do not belong on the public airwaves, and ask your representatives to formulate and enforce laws preventing a repeat performance.

Update: Here's a Focus on the Family link for contacting the NFL.

(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.)

Separation of Art and State

As the President has proposed the largest budget increase in 20 years for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), now is a good time to look back at an April 22, 2003 Dennis Prager column on artists' values:

Many, perhaps most, great artists are geniuses in one area and underdeveloped elsewhere in life. It seems that when God grants great artistic talent to an individual, that individual is given few other gifts, least of all moral clarity or wisdom.

That is why there is rarely any link between artistic greatness and human greatness. We should no more expect a great actor or composer or painter to be a great human being than we should expect a great lawyer, truck driver, businessman or athlete to be a great human being. Art rarely makes a person wiser or kinder, whether the person is a connoisseur of art or the creator of it.

Those of us who love classical music -- and as an occasional orchestral conductor, I am particularly involved in music -- have long had to confront the lack of connection between genius and goodness or wisdom. Richard Wagner, for example, was one of the world's greatest composers and a racist anti-Semite. Neither Beethoven nor Mozart was known to be a particularly decent human being. Herbert von Karajan, one of the most celebrated conductors of the 20th century, served as Kapellmeister under Adolf Hitler and never apologized for his support of the Nazis. The great African-American singer Paul Robeson passionately supported Joseph Stalin until the day that mass murderer died.

. . . Only those who worship art should be surprised. And there are many of them. With the demise of the worship of God in Europe, secular Westerners began to worship new gods, most especially art and artists. This explains why so many people have asked how Germany, which produced Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, could also produce gas chambers -- as if producing great composers should in some way raise the moral level of that society.

So the next time you see "artists for" or "artists against" some cause, without reading any further, you can pretty much bet your mortgage that whatever it is they are for or against, they are morally wrong. While God may have granted artists little wisdom, He apparently did not skimp on hubris.

To the Left, state funding of their religion (art) is an absolute moral obligation; however, such funding to other religions - especially traditionalist and "unenlightened" Christianity and Judaism - is unconstitutional and corrupting to both church and state.

Let's keep in mind what the Salvation Army would do with our tax dollars versus what the NEA would do. While it has a new chairman who many believe will reverse its moral decay, the fact remains that in the past the NEA's priests have funded many projects with obscene and/or anti-religious content, including homosexual film festivals and blasphemous exhibits, in addition to plenty of just plain undisciplined, unskilled garbage, what historian Paul Johnson calls "fashion art." There is no guarantee this will not recur. Furthermore, in an era of out-of-control federal spending, the government should not waste 140 million tax dollars on what is, at best, a non-essential budget item, similar to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (see our Jan. 1, 2004 entry).

Use our Take Action page to ask President Bush to reconsider the proposal and privatize the NEA. Ask your other representatives to do the same. A free market in art, like a free market in education, will liberate both the producers and consumers of the product.

(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.)

When Educrats Attack

The education monopoly's puppets in Washington are attempting to destroy the nation's first federally funded school voucher program. Senators Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) say they will introduce legislation in the Senate to repeal the D.C. schools voucher provision included in the appropriations package passed on Jan. 22.

Puffy, power-drunk uber-liberal Kennedy vows "This battle is far from over."

Ralph Neas of the far-left pressure group People for the American Way said, "I do think we have a very good chance to accomplish this legislatively."

This use of the legislative process is an uncharacteristically democratic approach for the Left, which generally seeks to impose its will on the majority through fatwas from judicial tyrants (e.g., the same-sex marriage and Boy Scouts assaults). However, D.C.'s congressional delegate confirms anti-voucher groups are exploring a court challenge against the program, so the old dog really hasn't learned any new tricks.

Of the current crop of Democrat presidential contenders, only Joe Lieberman supports voucher programs, and only as "experiments."

The teachers unions and the democrats know they're cornered. They know this tiny program has immense symbolic significance, and that the proven success of voucher programs foreshadows national education privatization and the end of their powerful monopoly. Use our Take Action page to ask President Bush and your representatives to mount an aggressive defense of the D.C. vouchers program against the legislative and court attacks that are sure to come.

(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 End of Marriage?

I'm sure somewhere in the vast cannon of FDA regulations there are standards for what can be labeled "wine" - a certain alcohol percentage, etc. And I'll bet there are more than a few folks on the Left who enjoy wine, and would be rather miffed if the courts suddenly forced the FDA to change its definition of wine to "anything anyone wants to put in a bottle and call `wine.'"

Yet that is exactly what the Left wants to do to marriage. If the government calls the union of two people of the same sex a "marriage," then on what logical or ethical basis can it refuse to sanction the union of three or more people of either sex? Or of two or more blood relatives of either sex? Or of any number of people of either sex plus one or more animals (of either sex)? The combinations are limited only by one's imagination.

At its core, the same-sex marriage movement is not about obtaining the few unique rights accruing to marriage. It is about intolerance of heterosexual marriage's existence and of its veneration as a social ideal. It's about using the Left's favored weapon of mass destruction, judicial fiat, to force society to provide the same veneration to homosexual unions. Anything less would be "intolerant" - their new definition of intolerance being "Failure to accept and celebrate a given behavior."

Focus on the Family has a quite comprehensive CitizenLink Extra on this subject, featuring detailed arguments on all facets of the issue and tools for contacting the relevant elected representatives.

(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.)

Which Party Under God?

Focus on the Family's Citizenlink site has an interesting proposal for the Democrat and Republican national committees:

A coalition of pro-family groups is calling on the Republican and Democratic National Committees to create planks in their 2004 party platforms that affirm the United States as "one nation under God" and endorse the public display of the Ten Commandments.

"We're going to put the challenge to them publicly," said the Rev. Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council, one of the groups behind the campaign. "We'll be showing up at a number of platform committee hearings around the country to urge them to make that clear statement to the American public."

You can join this effort by contacting Ed Gillespie. chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and urging them to create planks that honor the Pledge and Commandments.

You can send an e-mail to both chairmen at this link.

Gee, I wonder which party will readily agree to this request and which party will, at most, ignore 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.)

The California Parental Notification Initiative

This proposed law would require abortion practitioners notify at least one parent of a minor at least 48 hours prior to performing the procedure, except in cases of medical emergency or suspected abuse. ParentalNotification.org's description of the initiative notes:

It is both a statute and a constitutional amendment so the Courts cannot rule it unconstitutional.

Privacy considerations are not granted to minors for obtaining medicines, tattoos, body piercing, marriage licenses, or admission to the armed services. Minors have never had the full complement of "rights" under constitutional law.

Statistics show that states with parental notification for minors seeking abortion promote family communication and allow for parental responsibility.

Polls show that both pro-choice and pro-life individuals favor Parental Notification.

It would be illegal for school counselors and other school personnel to arrange for a minor's abortion without her parent's knowledge.

In a LifeNews.com article, one of the initiative's official proponents, a mother whose teenage daughter had a clandestine abortion, describes the current problem well:

"Your sixteen-year-old daughter cannot get her ears pierced without your permission, but she can have a school nurse drive her to an abortion clinic in the middle of the day without your knowledge. It is not only common sense, it is a safety issue.

"This initiative is about promoting family communication," added Avila. "My goal is to help parents help their daughters."

Parental notification is indeed "common sense," and opinion polls show overwhelming support for notification laws, but no doubt the initiative will be opposed by the same forces aggressively fighting against education privatization and for power grabs such as universal preschool. In its usual ignorance of common sense, left-wing fundamentalist dogma dictates that the state always knows best when it comes to raising your children, and should have power over them under all circumstances and at all ages. Therefore an "enlightened" school nurse can facilitate an abortion of which you the parent (who might be one of those neanderthal pro-lifers) will never be informed.

The initiative's sponsors need 598,000 more signatures by April 15 to add it to the November 2004 ballot. You can request a petition 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.)

If I Were an Educrat, I'd Be Scared

After nine years of debate in Congress, the Senate has given final approval to the nation's first federally funded school voucher program, providing $14 million a year in private school tuition grants to District of Columbia school children. Children First America reports:

The legislation permits Secretary of Education Roderick R. Paige to launch a five-year pilot program designed in consultation with Washington Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) to provide annual, taxpayer-funded grants of up to $7,500 a year for at least 1,600 District schoolchildren to attend private and parochial schools beginning this fall.

"Opportunity scholarships" would be limited to children in families earning up to 185 percent of the poverty level -- about $36,000 for a family of four -- with priority going to children attending low-performing public schools.

Williams, to the consternation of critics in the District, was a supporter of the voucher program.

The victory revives a national school voucher movement that was left moribund after landslide defeats in voter referenda in 2000 in California and Michigan and follows a Supreme Court decision that upheld their constitutionality 19 months ago.

Nine years of debate over spending 14 stinkin' million dollars. But let's not fool ourselves. The issue is not the $14 million. Stocking the bar in Ted Kennedy's office for the past nine years probably cost $14 million. The core issue is whether left-wing ideologues will control our schools and the raising of our children. The debate dragged on this far (and litigation will continue) because of a powerful teachers union, a powerful anti-religion lobby that seeks to keep funds from parochial schools, and because of a vigorous left that believes the state, not parents, should raise children.

Yet we must celebrate this significant victory. Let's hope it is the camel's nose in the tent, the beginning of a movement that results in the end of the public education monopoly and the start of a free market in education from kindergarten to university. Use our Take Action page to thank the President and your pro-school-choice representatives for winning this victory for D.C. children, and handing a defeat to the anti-school-choice forces. And be sure to reiterate your support for further steps to privatize public education across the board.

(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.)

Drunken GOP Sailors

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial focuses on what the editors call "the most profligate Administration since the 1960s":

The bottom line is truly shocking. Passage of the omnibus bill would raise total discretionary spending to more than $900 billion in 2004. By contrast, the eight Clinton-era budgets produced discretionary spending growth from $541 billion 1994 to $649 billion in 2001. Nor can recent increases be blamed on the war. At 18.6%, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending under the 107th Congress (2002-2003) is far and away the biggest in decades. In 2003, total federal spending topped an inflation-adjusted $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II

. . . The truth is that this spending bill is hardly necessary. The government has been running just fine at 2003 spending levels since September (have you noticed?), and can easily continue to do so for the rest of the fiscal year. We realize Mr. Bush is eager for passage of certain line items, such as his program to combat AIDS in Africa, but this bill is literally too high a price to pay, especially in terms of his own credibility. We're not holding our breath for a change of heart, but President Bush can help shore up his conservative base and appeal to many moderate voters by exercising his very first veto here.

Steve Moore of the Club for Growth is correct in calling the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill a "pork-laden monstrosity." Among other atrocities, it includes $50 million for an indoor rain forest in Coralville, Iowa and $2 million for a "golf awareness program" in St. Augustine, Florida. Pork barrel expenditures will total $23 billion in 2004.

Use our Take Action page to ask President Bush to veto the bill, and to demand that your representatives - particularly your Republican ones, who should know better - act to curtail out-of-control discretionary spending. Put them in shock by asking for cancellation of pork barrel projects in your state. Maybe that'll get their attention.

(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

FrontPage Magazine brings us a detailed and important exploration of the national security implications of the open borders movement. In his introduction, David Horowitz notes that the piece, written by William Hawkins and Erin Anderson,

. . . describes how America's borders have been under assault for forty years with consequences that are measurable and disturbing. The assault has been led by an open borders lobby that is sophisticated and powerful. Many of its components, moreover, have a history of antagonism to American purposes and a record of active support for America's enemies. Its funders are multi-billion dollar entities, who are unaccountable and unscrutinized. They have more discretionary incomes at their disposal to influence these issues than is possessed by either political party, or any business group, or even the federal government itself.

As Hawkins and Anderson show, the open borders campaign was already instrumental in damaging the nation's ability to defend itself before 9/11. Yet not even this terrible event has caused its activists to have second thoughts, or tempered their reckless attacks. Instead, the open borders lobby has expanded its efforts to eliminate America's border controls to include the active defense of terrorists and terrorist organizations and a continuing assault on the very policies the federal government has adopted to defend its citizens from terrorist attacks.

. . . William Hawkins and Erin Anderson have performed an essential public service by tying together the threads of this network and putting its agendas into perspective. The picture they paint is as detailed as it is disturbing and should open a national debate and perhaps congressional hearings on the uses to which taxpayer funds are being directed as the nation faces its post-9/11 threats.

And from the piece itself:

The concept of "open borders" has long been an agenda of the ideological left. Since the 1960s, a vast network -- including hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of grassroots activists, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars from leftwing foundations -- has waged a sustained campaign to open America's borders to a mass migration from the Third World. Though these groups talk in terms of "human rights," the rights they demand are not the restrictions on government enshrined in the American Bill of Rights, but the claims on society for "equity" and "welfare" and special treatment for designated groups that are the familiar menu of the left and would, if enacted, amount to a revolution in America's existing social order. Which is precisely their intent.

Use our Take Action page to contact your representatives and advocate congressional hearings on the use of taxpayer funds by groups dedicated to the ideological left's open borders policy, which seeks to import and politically exploit a massive underclass and to undermine US efforts to defend against terror attacks.

(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.)

Take a Bite Out of PETA

The Center for Consumer Freedom describes itself as a "nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers" created to defend against the "growing fraternity of ?food cops,' health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent radicals who think they know ?what's best for you'. . . ."

A cynical industry pressure group? Maybe. Will their actions in opposition to PETA further the spread of moral clarity in the US? Definitely. Their website observes:

Despite its deceptively warm-and-fuzzy public image, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has donated over $150,000 to criminal activists -- including those jailed for arson, burglary, and even attempted murder. In 2001, PETA donated $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front, a criminal organization that the FBI classifies as "domestic terrorists." And since 2000, rank-and-file PETA activists have been arrested over 80 times for breaking various laws during PETA protests. Charges included felony obstruction of government property, criminal mischief, assaulting a cabinet official, felony vandalism, performing obscene acts in public, destruction of federal property, and burglary.

Like millions of other nonprofit groups in the United States (e.g., universities , houses of worship, social service organizations), PETA pays no federal taxes on its income. But few of these other tax-exempt groups share PETA's total disregard for the law. In 2002 PETA collected over $17 million from Americans, avoiding over $3 million in federal income taxes. Because this tax break amounts to a huge subsidy, every American taxpayer is footing the bill for PETA's behavior.

PETA's tax-exempt status was granted by the U.S. government on the basis of the group's willingness to conduct itself in a lawful fashion. We believe that PETA has failed to live up to its end of the bargain, and that the Internal Revenue Service should cancel PETA's tax-exempt status.

PETA is currently under IRS investigation. You can add your name to the Center's petition encouraging U.S. government officials to revoke PETA's tax-exempt status, and use our Take Action page to ask your elected officials to join the effort.

(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.)

AB 56: The Education Monopoly's California Power-Grab

The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and other pro-family groups are requesting action on AB 56, a California assembly bill which would lower the compulsory education age from 6 to 5 years of age, and take an incremental step toward a universal preschool program for 3 and 4 year- olds:

AB 56 lowers the compulsory attendance age for entry into school from 6 to 5 years of age. This requirement will apply to all children, whether their parents plan to send them to public school or private school (including private home schools).

AB 56 also makes "free" public preschool available to every child under 5 years of age on a voluntary basis. Should this bill pass, it could easily be followed by legislation to make institutionalized preschool mandatory. Universal preschool has been proposed by legislators in the past and is openly encouraged by proponents of early childhood education.

This bill goes beyond education. It states, "There is a further compelling need in California to ensure that early childhood development programs and services are universally and continuously available for children so that children enter school in optimum health and are emotionally well developed and ready and able to learn.... Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to provide.... Universal preschool programs that offer group experiences, developmentally appropriate curricula, and allow for a seamless integration to K-12 education for all children three and four years of age."

Rushing children into formal education will exact a heavy toll on the development of many children and will weaken the role of parents in their lives. This is diametrically opposed to the message parents are currently being given, that parents need to be more involved in their children's lives. AB 56 specifically states, "Children who have secure relationships with family members ... can become self-confident learners." However, parents cannot be more involved when the state either encourages or requires children to be with their parents for less time. Research supports later rather than earlier entry for children for educational development.

Visit this HSLDA page for an analysis of the bill and links to contact information for California legislators. Also, National Review Online has an interesting Q and A on the detrimental effects of preschool/daycare with Brian C. Robertson, author of Day Care Deception: What the Child Care Establishment Isn't Telling Us.

(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.)