Defeat the Davis Amendment to H.R. 4200
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From the Family Research Council:

When the House considers the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Defense authorization bill this week, Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) is expected to offer an amendment which would repeal current law and authorize abortion-on-demand at military hospitals. Rep. Davis's amendment will seek to turn DOD medical treatment facilities into abortion clinics. Pushing abortion-on-demand in U.S. military facilities is an extremist view that does not represent the wishes of the majority of the American people nor of the military doctors who would be affected by the change.

* Under current U.S. law (10 U.S.C. 1093(b)) no abortions may be performed in military facilities, except when the life of the mother would be endangered if the unborn child were carried to term or in cases of rape or incest.

* When President Clinton changed the military abortion policy in 1993, all military physicians refused to perform elective abortions. The administration then sought to hire civilian physicians to perform abortions. Therefore, if the House adopts the Davis amendment, in addition to taxpayer-funded facilities supporting abortion on demand, new personnel could be hired at taxpayers' expense to perform these abortions.

* Military treatment centers should not be forced to facilitate the taking of innocent human life.

The House of Representatives has voted consistently against attempts to mandate federal funding of abortions at overseas military medical facilities since 1996 and should do so again.

Contact your Representative and tell him or her to vote against the Davis amendment to HR 4200.

The alert includes a CapWiz utility for doing so.

And in the if-it-was-about-Islam-it-would-be-prosecuted-as-a-hate-crime department:

Check out the story on the latest instance of Christian bashing by Hollywood.

Keep the Base Realignment and Closure Process Alive
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

An action alert from the National Taxpayers Union focuses on how the preservation of local pork is harming the nation and armed forces:

While our nation's military planners search for ways to get the most from the hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars our nation annually spends on defense, many in Congress and in state and local governments are more concerned with keeping military bases open in their home districts - whether they are a military necessity or not. The Department of Defense estimates that the 2005 BRAC round could yield as much as $6 billion in recurring annual savings. A delay of two years, as currently outlined in the Defense Authorization bill, will cost taxpayers billions of dollars without increasing our level of safety. This is money that could be put to better use improving the quality of life for our men and women in uniform or investing in new, modernized weapons systems.

The alert includes further details, plus an e-mail utility and sample message.

Resources on Same-Sex Marriage
Topic: Judicial Tyranny
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Today, by order of the state's Supreme Judicial Court -- not by vote of the people, nor even the legislature -- same-sex marriages will be performed in Massachusetts.

I recall that several months ago when I e-mailed the Massachusetts legislature on this issue, one of the reps took the time to send me a personal reply equating me with racists in the Jim Crow south and asserting that he did not know why I thought I should be allowed to vote on granting the "civil right" of same-sex marriage.

What representative what's-his-name failed to grasp is that someone's votes will decide this issue. The question is whether the votes will be those of a few judges (maybe only one), instituting law created by unconstitutional judicial fiat, or those of all the states' duly-elected legislators, in acceptance or rejection of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

To help concerned citizens address the same-sex marriage issue, the Family Research Council has compiled an essential page:

The issue of same-sex 'marriage' will be debated not just on television and among lawmakers here in Washington, but around kitchen tables and in local communities across the country. You will have to be the spokesmen for the family.

If we are to prevail in the battle to keep the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it will be because you talked to your neighbor, you called your elected officials, you got your church involved. You are the foot soldiers in this battle.

To that end, FRC is here to arm you with the latest information, talking points and materials you'll need to engage your community. You are encouraged to not only read the information . . . but also forward to friends and make copies to pass out at your church. This is a crucial moment in America's history. Not only will our children ask us where we were when homosexual "marriage" became legal in America, they will ask us what we did.

Retain Rumsfeld
Topic: World War IV
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In his most recent essay in National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson analyzes the Democrats' jihad against Donald Rumsfeld and our suicidal American Cannibalism:

Have we any memory of a man in a suit and tie, nearly three years ago wading through the din and panic amid the morning rubble, assuring millions of stunned Americans that the national headquarters of their armed forces was still intact and capable of defending us after the mass murder of 3,000? And have we no shame in recognizing that should some congressional critics and Washington harpies get their way, Americans will accomplish what bin Laden's suicide bombers could not on September 11: remove America's finest Secretary of Defense in a half century?

The idea that anyone would suggest that Donald Rumsfeld and now Richard Meyers! should step down, in the midst of a global war, for the excesses and criminality of a handful of miscreant guards and their lax immediate superiors in the cauldron of Iraq is absurd and depressing all at once.

What would we think now if George Marshall had been forced out on news that 3,000 miles away George S. Patton's men had shot some Italian prisoners, or Gen. Hodges's soldiers summarily executed German commandoes out of uniform, or drivers of the Red Ball express had raped French women? Should Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell have been relieved from his command for the February 12-13, 1991, nocturnal bombing of the Al Firdos compound in Baghdad, in which hundreds of women and children of Baathist loyalists were tragically incinerated and pictures of their corpses broadcast around the world, prompting the United States to cease all further pre-planned and approved attacks on the elite in Saddam's bunkers throughout Baghdad? Of course not.

While I can't imagine President Bush will yield to the maniacal demands of the likes of Ted "Hero of Chappaquiddick" Kennedy, a message of support for Rummy is in order. Use our Take Action page to send one, and to copy your Senators and House Rep.

The Video Programming Choice and Decency Act
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Some good news from the Parents Television Council:

. . . [C]able choice may soon be a reality. A measure offered by Rep. Deal would allow cable or satellite operators to voluntarily offer customers cable channels on an "a la carte" basis, which means you will be able to pick and pay only for those channels you want.

Right now, cable and satellite companies force customers to buy big packages of channels that may contain programming they neither watch nor want to pay for. Why should parents have to subsidize cable channels that undermine their core values and beliefs? Why should a parent who wants their child to benefit from educational programming on the Disney Channel or the Discovery network also have to underwrite programs like The Shield, which recently featured an episode in which a police captain was forced to copulate a gang member at gun point? Or MTV's Spring Break which glorifies and glamorizes high-risk promiscuity and binge-drinking to young viewers.

Offering parents the ability to choose the channels they want, and to pay only for those channels, puts power back in the hands of the consumer and forces the producers of indecent or violent programming to fund their own raunch. These raunchy networks have been carried on the backs of American consumers long enough. It is time for this extortion to end.

Please Act Now!

Help us let Congress know you're fed up with lack of cable choice. Act now and send a message to the House Energy and Commerce Committee to support the Video Programming Choice and Decency Act of 2004.

The PTC has a sample message for your Representative and an e-mail utility here.

Five Questions on the Murder of Nick Berg
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Does anyone believe that the scum who murdered Mr. Berg will hesitate for one second to detonate nuclear weapons in the US, as soon as they get them?

Does anyone believe that if Mexican busboys and multi-ton shipments of cocaine can easily penetrate our borders, Islamic terrorists and nuclear weapons cannot?

Does anyone know why immigrants from terrorist-sponsoring states are here, and more are still allowed entry? How much immigration from Germany and Japan was allowed during World War II?

Does anyone know what will awaken our country, if 9-11 and the parade of Moslem atrocities following it have not?

And, on a related topic, how is the beheading of a fetus in the womb less barbaric than what happened to Mr. Berg?

Just asking.

Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons, Part 9
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From Army Radio, via the Jerusalem Post, comes news that Israel, whose 1981 attack on Saddam's Osirak nuclear reactor saved Western civilization from nuclear terror, may be rehearsing for a repeat performance:

US: Israel may strike Iranian nuclear plants

Israel may be preparing to attack Iranian nuclear facilities within the year, according to US administration assessments reported on Army Radio Saturday morning.

Officials say that the attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons has been discussed at various levels, as well as the effects such an attack would have on US military and political efforts in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf.

The UPI news service says President George Bush and Prime Minster Ariel Sharon recently discussed the subject at their most recent meeting. Following the meeting, Bush said it was inconceivable for the Middle East for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

When the attack occurs, the "international community" will howl, of course. But hopefully the US will not make the same mistake it made in 1981 by condemning what would be a key move in winning the war on Islamic terror.

Use our Take Action page to urge President Bush to, upon news of the Israeli strike, send Ariel Sharon a nice fruit basket and a thank you note.

(For more on nuclear terrorism, click the "Nuclear Terrorism" link on the topics list at the upper left of this page.)

End The Visa Lottery
Topic: Homeland Security
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Agape Press reports on one of the many gaping holes that still exist in US immigration policy:

Immigration Program May Threaten Homeland Security, Expert Warns

There is growing concern among many people in the U.S. capital that the federal government could be undermining its own homeland security efforts.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies feels U.S. government immigration policies may be compromising America's homeland security. According to him, each year tens of thousands of foreigners are granted green cards through an arbitrary government- run lottery program.

"The federal government runs a lottery for immigrants -- a visa lottery that gives 50,000 randomly selected people from around the world access to the United States, to move here and eventually to become citizens," Krikorian says.

The immigration expert notes that the program was originally begun to help Irish illegal immigrants, but in recent years it has become a conduit for immigrants coming from the Muslim world, many from nations whose governments have proven untrustworthy or hostile to the U.S.

Krikorian says over the years the lottery has turned into an "Islamic world and sub-Saharan African immigration program" that ends up resulting in "an enormous amount of fraud" taking place. In fact, he says, "Some of the top countries that send immigrants under this visa program are some of the most corrupt countries in the world."

The director of the Center for American Immigration Studies says America's own immigration policy has already been used to funnel terrorists onto her shores. And, he notes, that policy could still be further undermining U.S. efforts to provide security and prevent another terrorist plot like the 9-11 attacks from being carried out.

Krikorian says something has to be done to stop the immigrant visa program, or it could end up being used to help usher more terrorists onto American soil.

Perhaps you'll recall this was the visa program under which the freelance terrorist who on July 4, 2002 murdered two people at the LAX El Al counter had been allowed to remain in the US. It's a scandal that programs like this exist after such an incident, let alone after 9-11, which should have been the wake up call that changed American immigration policy forever.

Our leaders are slow learners. Educate them by sending this article to your representatives and urging them abolish the immigrant visa lottery.

Speak Out to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From Focus on the Family CitizenLink:

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has backed away from a
requirement that homosexual couples applying for marriage
licenses prove they live in the Bay State.

That means, even though the state's official policy is
that only gays who are residents can be married, there's
nothing to prevent any couple from lying about where they
live on their application.

Romney's decision could have grave consequences for every
other state in the union, because if out-of-state couples
are married in Massachusetts, they could then demand their
home states recognize the unions.

Please take a moment to ask Gov. Romney to reconsider his
actions. You can find contact information, including an
easy-to-use e-mail form, by clicking [here].

National Day of Prayer

(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In 1787, Benjamin Franklin gave these remarks to members of the Constitutional Convention:

In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle have observed frequent instances of superintending Providence in our favor. . . . And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or, do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his Aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we shall become a reproach and a byword to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.

I therefore beg to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business.

For more information on today's National Day of Prayer, visit NationalDayOfPrayer.org.

Codify The Oath of Allegiance With H.R. 3191
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Agape Press reports:

Kansas Congressman Wants to Codify Immigrants' 'Oath of Allegiance'

A Kansas congressman has introduced legislation that would codify the oath of allegiance immigrants must make when they become U.S. citizens. The bill would make it clear that new citizens must be loyal to their new country -- and would prevent that oath from being watered down.

Republican Jim Ryan was concerned about proposed changes to the oath of allegiance drafted by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Ryan says those changes were intended to make the language more modern, but instead would transform an absolute commitment to the Constitution into a conditional statement, weakening citizenship.

"What we're attempting to do with the oath of allegiance and with legal immigration is to continue to encourage those who are coming in that this is a great country and these are the standards that we've had in the past," Ryan explains. "We want to all be on the same page as we move forward, fighting this war on terrorism -- and I don't believe this is the time to lower those standards."

The Kansas lawmaker introduced HR 3191 in September 2003, which he says would codify into law what the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services wants to change. He says those who want to pursue the "American dream" need to realize it requires a full-time commitment to citizenship -- and a willingness to defend the United States. . . .

According to Ryan, HR 3191 -- which is working its way through the House Judiciary Committee -- would establish the oath of allegiance as federal law, giving it the same protection as the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem. The names of more than 60 co-sponsors are attached to the legislation.

Use our Take Action page to ask your Representative to support this bill.

Pray for The President, and Adopt a Troop

(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits,
and humbly to implore his protection and favors." --George
Washington

From PresidentialPrayerTeam.org's information page:

ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL PRAYER TEAM

Many across America and Americans in other countries are heeding the call to pray for our President. In a short time since the September 11 terrorist attacks, well over a million people have registered their promise to pray daily for the President. That number is increasing by the thousands of new team members every month. News of The Presidential Prayer Team is spreading rapidly throughout America as people march to the tempo of an almost forgotten tune, "God Bless America."

The independent, nonprofit organization behind The Presidential Prayer Team, has a singular purpose: to encourage Americans to pray daily for the President.

There is no fee or obligation for joining. Members receive a handsome free window decal and prayer updates by email. Anyone choosing to remember the President in daily prayer is urged to sign up.

The Presidential Prayer Team has now grown to more than 2.8 million members, and its mission has never been more important. Americans should remember that our nation exists at God's sufferance. Our enemies did not use nuclear weapons on 9-11 for one reason alone: they did not have them. When they obtain these weapons, only divine intervention, and divine guidance for our leaders, will prevent their eventual use. That's why prayers of wisdom and courage for President Bush, and his successors, are sorely needed.

You can join the team by clicking on "Join PPT" at the Presidential Prayer Team Website.

You can also adopt an individual U.S. troop from the site's database of military members who have requested prayer.

Weakness is Provocative, Part 2
Topic: World War IV
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In an insightful piece in National Review Online, Barbara Lerner reveals why the State Department should not be running the Iraq occupation, and why the military should:

Rumsfeld's War, Powell's Occupation

The latest post-hoc conventional wisdom on Iraq is that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld won the war but lost the occupation. There are two problems with this analysis (which comes, most forcefully, from The Weekly Standard). First, it's not Rumsfeld's occupation; it's Colin Powell's and George Tenet's. Second, although it's painfully obvious that much is wrong with this occupation, it's simple-minded to assume that more troops will fix it. More troops may be needed now, but more of the same will not do the job. Something different is needed and was, right from the start.

A Rumsfeld occupation would have been different, and still might be. Rumsfeld wanted to put an Iraqi face on everything at the outset -- not just on the occupation of Iraq, but on its liberation too. That would have made a world of difference.

Rumsfeld's plan was to train and equip -- and then transport to Iraq -- some 10,000 Shia and Sunni freedom fighters led by Shia exile leader Ahmed Chalabi and his cohorts in the INC, the multi-ethnic anti-Saddam coalition he created. There, they would have joined with thousands of experienced Kurdish freedom fighters, ably led, politically and militarily, by Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani. Working with our special forces, this trio would have sprung into action at the start of the war, striking from the north, helping to drive Baathist thugs from power, and joining Coalition forces in the liberation of Baghdad. That would have put a proud, victorious, multi- ethnic Iraqi face on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and it would have given enormous prestige to three stubbornly independent and unashamedly pro-American Iraqi freedom fighters: Chalabi, Talabani, and Barzani.

Jay Garner, the retired American general Rumsfeld chose to head the civilian administration of the new Iraq, planned to capitalize on that prestige immediately by appointing all three, along with six others, to head up Iraq's new transitional government. He planned to cede power to them in a matter of weeks not months or years and was confident that they would work with him, not against him, because two of them already had. General Garner, after all, is the man who headed the successful humanitarian rescue mission that saved the Kurds in the disastrous aftermath of Gulf War I, after the State Department-CIA crowd and like thinkers in the first Bush administration betrayed them. Kurds are not a small minority and they remember. The hero's welcome they gave General Garner when he returned to Iraq last April made that crystal clear.

Finally, Secretary Rumsfeld wanted to cut way down on the infiltration of Syrian and Iranian agents and their foreign terrorist recruits, not just by trying to catch them at the border -- a losing game, given the length of those borders -- but by pursuing them across the border into Syria to strike hard at both the terrorists and their Syrian sponsors, a move that would have forced Iran as well as Syria to reconsider the price of trying to sabotage the reconstruction of Iraq.

None of this happened, however, because State and CIA fought against Rumsfeld's plans every step of the way. . . .

Men like Chalabi, Talabani, and Barzani have nothing but contempt for [U.N. envoy] Mr. Brahimi, the U.N., and old Europe. They know perfectly well who their real enemies are, and they understand that only decisive military action against them can create the kind of order that is a necessary precondition for freedom and democracy. They see, as our State Department Arabists do not, that we will never be loved, in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East, until we are respected, and that the month we have wasted negotiating with the butchers of Fallujah has earned us only contempt, frightening our friends and encouraging our mortal enemies.

The damage Brahimi will do to the hope of a new day in Iraq and in the Middle East is so profound that it would not be worth it even if empowering him would bring in a division of French troops to reinforce ours in Iraq. In fact, it will do no such thing. Behind all the bluster and moral preening, the plain truth is that the French have starved their military to feed their bloated, top-heavy welfare state for decades. They couldn't send a division like the one the Brits sent, even if they wanted to (they don't). Belgium doesn't want to help us either, nor Spain, nor Russia, because these countries are not interested in fighting to create a new Middle East. They're fighting to make the most advantageous deals they can with the old Middle East, seeking to gain advantages at our expense, and at the expense of the oppressed in Iraq, Iran, and every other Middle Eastern country where people are struggling to throw off the shackles of Islamofascist oppression.

Use our Take Action page to send President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld a link to the Lerner piece. And be sure to excerpt the last paragraph:

It is not yet too late for us to recognize these facts and act on them by dismissing Brahimi, putting Secretary Rumsfeld and our Iraqi friends fully in charge at last, and unleashing our Marines to make an example of Fallujah. And when al Jazeera screams "massacre," instead of cringing and apologizing, we need to stand tall and proud and tell the world: Lynch mobs like the one that slaughtered four Americans will not be tolerated. Order will restored, and Iraqis who side with us will be protected and rewarded.

S. 2056 Stalled
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From the Parents Television Council:

We urgently need your help. As you know, Congress is considering legislation that would severely punish broadcasters who violate indecency laws. Unfortunately that legislation has stalled in the US Senate. If the Senate doesn't vote on this bill, S. 2056, in the next few days, it will likely die.

We need you to take immediate action to tell your Senators and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to vote on S. 2056 now! The public is outraged over the Super Bowl halftime show, the F-word on television broadcasts, and the graphic sexual content on morning drive-time radio. If we are to be successful in our efforts to reduce the obscene, indecent, and profane broadcasts from the public airwaves, then the FCC must have the power to impose meaningful fines and/or revoke station licenses of broadcasters who break the law. Don't let the broadcasters sweep our national outrage under the rug.

The alert includes links to talking points, and to contact information for all senators.

The Adoption Information Act, H.R. 1229
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From the Family Research Council:

Pro-abortion advocates constantly scream about protecting women's health through access to "family planning services," although what they really mean is access to abortion. There does not seem to be real concern on behalf of abortion advocates to giving women real choices with real information.

Women seeking family planning services in federally funded health clinics rarely receive all the information necessary for them to make an informed decision. Information on adoption and referrals for adoption services are rarely discussed at all, and when they are, that information is often inaccurate and incomplete.

To remedy this and help women be educated on the resources available to them Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) has introduced the Adoption Information Act, H.R. 1229. This bill would require all family planning clinics that accept Title X funds to provide a detailed pamphlet of adoption information to all people seeking family planning services.

Specifically, this pamphlet must include comprehensive contact information for all adoption centers in the appropriate state. The legislation aims to ensure that women are provided with accurate and complete information to make informed decisions.

The alert links to the FRC's congressional directory, or you can use our Take Action page to ask your Representative to support this bill.

And on the same topic . . .

Wanna know if your favorite celebrity marched in support of sucking the brain out of a nine month old fetus? Click here.

Become Mega-Informed With MegaVote

(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Capitol Advantage's Congress.org site offers an absolute essential for any political devotions practitioner:

Track your senators' and representative's votes by e-mail!

Each week (that Congress is in session) you will receive:

Key votes by your two Senators and U.S. Representative.

Links to send e-mail to your members of Congress using pre-
addressed forms.

Upcoming votes for your review and links to offer e-mail input before
they vote.

Go thou now therefore and sign up!

Weakness is Provocative
Topic: World War IV

(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

As is so often the case, a Wall Street Journal editorial is spot-on in assessing a crisis:

The Fallujah Stakes

The insurgents understand guns, not diplomacy.

. . . Sooner or later the Baath remnants, jihadists and criminals who have used Fallujah as a sanctuary have to be killed. They can't be bargained with, they can't be reasoned with, because for them a peaceful transition to Iraqi control after June 30 means defeat. If the estimated 2,000 or so insurgents decide to allow Marine patrols, it will be because they have concluded it is safer to melt away to kill Americans another day rather than fight to the death in Fallujah now.

The killers facing Marines in Fallujah are those who melted away a year ago as coalition forces closed on Baghdad. Rather than fight and die then, they retreated to the Sunni heartland to regroup, rearm and organize the murder of both coalition soldiers and the Iraqis who are cooperating with us. The U.S. didn't pursue those Saddamists at the time, and it decided in later months to let Fallujah more or less alone. We now know this was a mistake, and the Marine presence is a recognition that the city can no longer be tolerated as a terror sanctuary. . . .


By the way, it hardly helps to have United Nations envoy Lakhdar Brahimi publicly warning the U.S. not to defeat insurgents who are killing Americans. He repeated again yesterday that "In this situation, there is no military solution," and portrayed any U.S. attack in Fallujah as unjustified. This rhetoric, amplified by al-Jazeera, will only make it more likely that any offensive in Fallujah would be misinterpreted by other Iraqis.

Mr. Brahimi is the man Mr. Bremer and National Security Council staffer Robert Blackwill have sold to President Bush as the key to a sound political transition in Iraq. But three times in the past two weeks he has made public remarks damaging to coalition progress and U.S. interests in the region.

He told French radio last Wednesday that, "There is no doubt that the great poison in the region is this Israeli policy of domination and the suffering imposed on the Palestinians, as well as the perception by the body of the population in the region, and beyond, of the injustice of this policy and the equally unjust support of the United States for this policy." U.S. "poison?" Is Condoleezza Rice paying attention?

The danger with delay in Fallujah and Mr. Brahimi's comments is that they will be interpreted by Iraqis as a sign that the U.S. is losing its resolve and simply wants out. Perhaps caution in Fallujah makes sense at this moment, but sooner or later the insurgents have to be defeated, and at the point of a gun, not by diplomacy. If we're not prepared to do that, Mr. Bush might as well order the troops home now.

Use our Take Action page to communicate to President Bush, Dr. Rice and Donald Rumsfeld that, as the WSJ asserts, "sooner or later the insurgents have to be defeated, and at the point of a gun, not by diplomacy."

The Pro-Abortion Feminist Scouts

(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Back in February, Hans Zeiger penned a great piece on the Girl Scouts' transformation into what he termed "a pro-abortion, feminist training corps." Recently the Family Research Council set up a CapWiz action alert focusing on the Girl Scouts' relationship with Planned Parenthood and the distribution of sexually explicit materials to girls as young as ten:

Over the past few weeks, parents have been furious after learning of a cozy alliance between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of abortions.

The Girl Scouts have been giving their seal of approval to an explicit sex ed pamphlet, distributed by Planned Parenthood, to children as young as 10 years-old. The literature includes information on masturbation as well as diagrams of adults having sex and a boy putting on a condom.

Planned Parenthood is not only the nation's most prolific provider of abortions, they are inundating young children with graphic information about sex that has no place in the hands of a 10 year-old. Fifth-grade girls do not need Planned Parenthood telling them about sex, condoms and diseases.

Send an email to Girl Scouts' CEO Kathy Cloninger and tell her to end the Girl Scouts-Planned Parenthood alliance!

STOPP International also has a page to help you contact your local Girl Scout council to determine if it has a relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Punditry and News

(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Charles Krauthammer exposes John Kerry as a man with no plan: Going Back to the UN? For What?:

No one can understand how, with the president being pummeled daily on the front pages by Richard Clarke, the Sept. 11 hearings, the Woodward book, and the eruption of Iraq into open warfare again, Bush nonetheless has gained over Kerry on the issue of national security.

The answer is simple: Americans are a serious people, war is a serious business, and what John Kerry is offering is simply not serious. Americans may be unsure whether Bush has a plan for success in Iraq. But they sure as hell know that going to U.N. headquarters, visiting foreign capitals and promising lots of jaw-jaw is no plan at all.

The "This is London" section of the Evening Standard takes a revealing -- and revolting -- look at Terror On The Dole:

Four young British Muslims in their twenties - a social worker, an IT specialist, a security guard and a financial adviser - occupy a table at a fast-food chicken restaurant in Luton. Perched on their plastic chairs, wolfing down their dinner, they seem just ordinary young men. Yet out of their mouths pour heated words of revolution. "As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better," says Abdul Haq, the social worker. "I know it's going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."

"Pass the brown sauce, brother," says Abu Malaahim, the IT specialist, devouring his chicken and chips. "I agree with you, brother," says Abu Yusuf, the earnest-looking financial adviser sitting opposite. "I would like to see the Mujahideen coming into London and killing thousands, whether with nuclear weapons or germ warfare. And if they need a safehouse, they can stay in mine - and if they need some fertiliser [for a bomb], I'll tell them where to get it."

Oppose California A.B. 1967

(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

The Campaign for California Families has set up a comprehensive "take action page" for opposing California A.B. 1967:

April 20, 2004: Today, at an early morning hearing at the State Capitol in Sacramento, the Assembly Judiciary Committee passed AB 1967, which would create full-blown homosexual "marriage" and reject 4.6 million Californians who voted for Proposition 22, the Protection of Marriage Initiative, just four years ago. AB 1967 advances to the Appropriations Committee.

The vote in the Democrat-controlled committee was 8 to 3 to pass the "gay marriage" bill. Voting "yes" on AB 1967 were all 8 Democrats present, including four Democrats who are termed-out of office: Ellen Corbett of San Leandro (chair), Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, John Laird of Santa Cruz, Lloyd Levine of Van Nuys, Sally Lieber of San Jose, John Longville of San Bernardino, Cindy Montanez of San Fernando, and Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento. Democrat Loni Hancock of Berkeley was absent. Voting "no" on AB 1967 were all three Republicans on the committee: Tom Harman of Huntington Beach, Patricia Bates of Laguna Niguel, and Ken Maddox of Costa Mesa.

Testifying against AB 1967 in the 90-minute hearing were representatives from Campaign for California Families, Traditional Values Coalition, Capitol Resource Institute, Responsible Citizens, and the California Catholic Conference.

Randy Thomasson, Executive Director of Campaign for California Families, was questioned by and sparred with pro-homosexual-marriage Democrats Darryl Steinberg and Lloyd Levine. Holding up a blue-and-yellow Proposition 22 yard sign to remind the committee that 61.4 percent of Californians voted in March 2000 to demand marriage be protected, Thomasson told the committee, "AB 1967 is illegal, unconstitutional and immoral. This bill turns marriage upside down and utterly rejects the vote of the people to protect marriage for a man and a woman. This should have never been introduced or even had a hearing. AB 1967 is corrupt and any legislator who votes for AB 1967 is corrupt too."

The Alert has all the information necessary to call, fax, e-mail or snail mail every California legislator, each legislator on the Assembly Judiciary Committee, the Assembly Speaker and Governor Schwarzenegger.