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

Family News in Focus reports on new efforts to criminalize beliefs:

Hate- Speech Law Could Limit Churches

A law in Pennsylvania may be used to silence pastors in the pulpit, but Christians have vowed to fight for the right to speak to the truth.

We've heard of laws in the Netherlands and Canada that penalize preachers for using the Bible to condemn homosexuality. Now it's happening in America.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has added an amendment to its hate-crimes law that covers something called "harassment by communication."

Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said the new provisions could open clergy to the possibility of prosecution for preaching on God's views of homosexuality.

"The threat is very real and something that needs to be addressed," Geer said. "The pulpit should be definitely a free-speech zone in the United States of America and in Pennsylvania."

Anthony Picarello, chief counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, agreed that the law may be tailored to intimidate pastors, priests and rabbis, but he said his group is ready to defend any pastor who might be charged for speaking out.

"The wording is broad enough that it could be applied (to religious speakers)," Picarello said, "and that's something . . . that the people who crafted the language had in mind."

The story includes a link to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty website, for more infomration on this new law and its implications.

Good Fences
Topic: Homeland Security
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

As so often happens in life, the bleedin' obvious course of action is shown to be effective: e.g., fences work.

Mideast Security Barrier Working

JENIN, West Bank -- The Israeli army reports a sharp drop in fatalities from Palestinian terror attacks in the first half of this year, giving much of the credit to the partially completed West Bank security barrier.

Palestinians, who are reluctant to find any good in the barrier, also are benefitting from a reduction in Israeli military operations into their neighborhoods and have begun to rebuild damaged streets and buildings.

Israeli fatalities since Jan. 1 are down by 33 percent compared with the first half of 2003 and by more than 80 percent compared with the first half of 2002, according to Israeli security officials. The northern section of the West Bank barrier -- a matrix of fences, trenches and concrete wall -- was completed a little less than a year ago.

Although Palestinians see the barrier's deviation from the West Bank border as a de facto land grab, the fence has made it infinitely more difficult for suicide bombers to reach Israeli cities just a few minutes away by car.

The last major suicide bombing involving civilians was in mid-March, and it has been almost seven weeks since an Israeli civilian died in a Palestinian attack.

Use our Take Action page to ask your elected officials why, given that terrorists currently can walk across our border virtually unhindered, the US does not have such a fence, at least for the duration of the war on Islamic terror?

Free Speech for Churches
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

An alert from the Family Research Council:

Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA), Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives, has single- handedly obstructed legislation that would protect the free speech rights of churches and pastors. Under current IRS law, houses of worship are strictly limited in their ability to speak to the moral issues of the day since the issues can be seen as political. Consequently, many pastors are fearful to speak on many cultural issues.

The legislation in question, originally introduced as H.R. 235, would simply allow religious leaders to educate their flock on the moral issues of the day, whether considered political or not without the threat of action from the IRS. The bill, now in the form of an amendment, is a total of 28 words, and is supported by House Leadership and over 165 House Members. Yet, even with this overwhelming support, Mr. Thomas has made it his personal mission to keep the provision out of any bill that moves through his committee, which practically kills its chances of passing this year.

The chief sponsor of the amendment, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), has worked tirelessly on this effort for years and is now being frustrated by one man in his own political party. It is time for House Leadership to exercise its own authority and demand that Mr. Thomas get out of the way of the amendment.

The future of our culture will largely be determined by whether or not our church leaders speak up in defense of the family and the dignity of life, and we need to defend their right to speak and we need to do it now. To contact your representatives, click [here].

From Solid Citizens to Spoiled Brats
Topic: Quality Punditry
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In her most recent column, Michelle Malkin muses on how far Hollywood has fallen:

Once upon a time, there were people in Hollywood who loved America. And when America came under attack from enemies abroad, these actors, producers, screenwriters and directors put aside their partisan differences and created movies that -- unlike Michael Moore's new schlockumentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- made all moviegoers proud to be Americans.

During World War II, Tinseltown roused the country's fighting spirit instead of trying to stifle it. In February 1941, the entertainment industry convened an extraordinary Academy Awards ceremony. The president of the Motion Picture Association, independent movie mogul and World War I pilot and intelligence officer Walter Wanger, went out of his way to use the Academy Award ceremony to support the war effort. Wanger invited President Roosevelt to address the crowd.

In an unprecedented radio speech simulcast on all three major networks at the time, FDR praised Hollywood for its wartime fundraising efforts and thanked filmmakers for "sanctifying the American way of life."

Can you imagine Hollywood extending such an invitation to President Bush today? Can you imagine CBS, ABC and NBC agreeing to simulcast such an event? And can you imagine the howling from the ACLU, ethnic groups, Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn if President Bush were allowed to appear at the Academy Awards to speak in support of "sanctifying the American way of life"?

Fight Unlimited Tolls
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Think driving is not expensive enough? Then don't respond to this National Taxpayer's Union alert:

Language now contained in the Senate version of the highway bill concerning tolling would allow a new hidden tax on motorists and truckers, by forcing Americans who pay taxes every time they fill up the tank to pay once again for tolls. Specifically, the tolling language would make it more expensive to use existing roads at peak "rush hour" times (High Occupancy Tolling), would allow states to convert existing Interstates built and maintained with gas taxes into toll roads, and would allow tolling to continue indefinitely with no guarantees that revenues are used for needed roads. Although the original House bill contained similar language, an amendment offered by Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN) and included in the final House bill, allows tolling only for the construction of new road capacity with those tolls to be removed once construction and maintenance costs are paid for (this is known as the Freeing Alternatives for Speedy Transportation or FAST concept).

Tolling does indeed have great promise as a tool for effectively managing traffic flow and building new road capacity, but it must be applied in ways that create net benefits for motorists and taxpayers. Tolling should not be used simply to enhance government revenue by forcing motorists to pay twice for existing road capacity. Since studies have shown that each year about 35 percent of federal fuel taxes are siphoned off to purposes that do not benefit the average motorist or trucker, evidence indicates that sending more money to Washington won't solve our nation's transportation crisis.

The alert includes a CapWiz-like form and a sample message for transmission to House and Senate transportation conferees.

Fast Action Needed on Budget Protection (H.R. 3800 and H.R. 3973)
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

An alert from Citizens Against Government Waste:

While H.R. 3973 is a good first step toward forcing our elected representatives to spend within budget guidelines, there is a better bill that will put some real teeth into budget enforcement and help cap the growth of congressional spending.

H.R. 3800 --The Family Budget Protection Act of 2004-- embodies the ideal in budget enforcement reform. We are supporting efforts to substitute this bill for H.R. 3973. Truth be told however, getting the votes needed to substitute the Family Budget Protection Act for the less effective H.R. 3973 will be difficult.

As a backup, some House members will offer parts of the Family Budget Protection Act as amendments to H.R. 3973. Getting these amendments added to H.R. 3973 will create a much stronger budget enforcement bill.

The most important elements of the Family Budget Protection Act include a joint budget resolution, which would convert the current parallel budget resolutions in Congress into a joint House/Senate resolution that is signed into law by the President, forcing the entire Congress to stay within its spending guidelines. The Act also includes an entitlement cap, which would limit the growth of entitlement spending, and an enhanced rescission process, which would provide the President an opportunity to eliminate wasteful spending in appropriations bills, similar to a line- item veto.

Real budget enforcement legislation will protect the family budget from the federal budget. Congress must put taxpayers' interests first and get serious about reducing spending, the deficit, and the growth of government!

Please click here to tell your Representative to support budget enforcement legislation. It's urgent that you act today. A House vote may come as early as tomorrow.

At War With Western Civilization
Topic: Quality Punditry
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

A brave and perceptive column from Walter E. Williams: Will The West Survive?

The Muslim world is at war with Western civilization. We have the military might to thwart them. The question is: Do we have the intelligence to recognize the attack and the will to defend ourselves from annihilation?

. . .

History never repeats itself exactly, but we might benefit from the knowledge of factors leading to the decline of past great civilizations. Rome was one of those advanced civilizations. Rome was so caught up in "bread and circuses" and moral decline that it couldn't manage to defend itself from invading barbaric hordes who ultimately plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. The sooner we recognize the West is in a war for survival, the more likely we'll be able to escape the fate that befell the Roman Empire.

How Many Warnings?
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

[Ed. Note: For the benefit of new readers, I'm re-running, with some modifications, this May 27, 2004 entry. It gives a feel for what makes this site different from the bulk of Christian activism sites, most of which focus on cultural/sexual issues such as homosexuality, pornography and abortion. While those issues certainly are not ignored here, the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamist madmen is given priority. If the US's millions of conservative Christian citizens fail to urge their leaders to address this threat, the consequences to Western civilization, and Christian evangelism, will be devastating.]

Eventually, God is going to lose patience with us.

As the always-eloquent Charles Krauthammer put it last night on Fox, it appears Al Gore is off his lithium again. But for the fact that a few farmisht Florida seniors accidentally marked their ballots for Pat Buchanan, this barking lunatic would be president. For those who say there is no God, I point to the results of the 2000 presidential election. Let's call the narrowly averted catastrophe of a Gore presidency Big Warning A, and let's call 9-11 Big Warning B.

Will God in his grace give us another chance in the form of a Big Warning C, or will he allow us to reap that which our narcissism, laziness and cowardice have sown? How long before Al Qaeda's stated objective of slaughtering four million Americans is achieved?

And of course the dream doesn't end there. The Islamist's vision is a worldwide caliphate, what Krauthammer has called "Taliban Afghanistan, writ large."

Allow me to repeat my familiar refrain: Anyone, including a rogue state or a terrorist network, can win a war if they possess nuclear weapons and are willing to strike first.

The World War II generation, the Greatest Generation, never questioned the morality of annihilating America's enemies before they could annihilate the US. Can an America populated with the Baby Boom generation, the Worst Generation, find that resolve? The central question is: What are we prepared to do?

Are we prepared to do whatever is necessary to win in Iraq, which President Bush properly characterizes as the major overseas front in the war on Islamic terror? Are we prepared to take the battle to other necessary fronts, such as Iran and North Korea?

And on the home front, are we prepared to deport, at least for the duration of the war, all non-US citizens from terrorist-sponsoring states? To place armed forces and an Israeli-style fence on our borders? To employ racial, ethnic and religious profiling in immigration, transportation security and law enforcement? To institute strict immigration controls to avoid a demographic shift that would gradually transform the US into just another Islamic hellhole, as is occurring in Europe as we speak?

Yes, these are drastic steps. But, in a world threatened by the Islamic Bomb, they are necessary.

Will Western historians one day recount the early 21st century as the era in which the US used all its powers to avert a new Dark Ages? Or will there be no future Western historians, only a glorious history of Allah's destruction of the Crusaders' empire, written by authorization of the world's ruling mullahs?

Our resolve, and our action, will decide these questions. God has warned us twice. We should not expect his indulgence forever.

The Evil We Fight
Topic: World War IV
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Premier warblog Little Green Footballs today provides a disturbing glimpse into the demonic, vicious, bloodthirsty minds of those we are fighting in the war on Islamic terror: Death Cult Kiddie Movies.

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

A recent Washington Times editorial does a great job of getting to the bottom line concerning the Iranian nuclear threat:

Iran's Mushrooming Threat

When it comes to displaying a calculated contempt for the United States, Europe and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear weapons development, the mullahcrats in Tehran are in a class with the Pyongyang Stalinists.

As the IAEA meets in Vienna to consider a European-drafted resolution pointing to Iran's continued refusal to come clean about its nuclear program, representatives of the Islamist regime continue to threaten the agency. The speaker of the Iranian parliament warned on June 15 that members may not ratify Iran's signature to an additional protocol to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- something insisted on by the IAEA after it discovered that Tehran was attempting to develop atomic weapons in violation of its obligations as a signer of the NPT. The speaker, Gholam Ali Hadad-Adel, suggested that by pressing Iran to tell the truth, the Europeans were doing the bidding of nefarious "Zionists." Late last month, the head of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards warned that that the regime was prepared to launch suicide attacks or missile strikes against "29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West."

Iranian President Mohammed Khatami (who is usually depicted in the Western press as a moderate) has denounced three European Union countries (Britain, France and Germany, known as the "EU 3") who have tried to put together a compromise arrangement in which Iran verifiably ends its pursuit of atomic weapons -- much as Libya has. Indeed, Mr. Khatami has hinted that Iran will withdraw from the NPT if the international community tries to force it to tell the truth about its nuclear activities.

Unfortunately, there is little evidence thus far that either the United States or the EU 3 will move decisively to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. While Britain and France seem to be inching toward a somewhat tougher approach, they have shown little interest in putting any kind of a deadline on Tehran. While Washington has done a commendable job of articulating the problem that would be posed by nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue governments like the one in Iran, it has shown little stomach for confronting the regime anytime this year. While the West delays taking action, congressional investigators reported on June 15 that Beijing is sending nuclear technology to Iran in exchange for oil.

In short, while we pass resolutions at the IAEA, the situation grows more dangerous. It is looking more and more like 2005 will be the critical year when the West will decide whether it is prepared to live with an Iranian atomic bomb, or take decisive action to prevent one from being developed. We understand that the United States and Europe are exhausted by Iraq, but we don't have the luxury of being exhausted. The truth is that the world will become a much more dangerous place if Iran -- ruled by a violent, paranoid cabal that routinely employs terrorism as an instrument of state policy -- is allowed to acquire a nuclear capacity. That would be intolerable.

For more analysis, and links for taking action, check out our "Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons Series" by clicking on "Nuclear Terrorism" under "Entries by Topic" at the left of this page.

California Minimum Wage Hike
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Here's an important alert for Californians from the National Taxpayers Union:

Abundant economic research has shown that minimum wages - and by extension, any increase in them - do more harm than good, particularly to the very workers they aim to protect. Not only do higher minimum wages fail to raise overall wage levels, they actually reduce overall employment by making unskilled and teenage workers more expensive to hire. Worse, by raising the cost of labor to businesses, the starting wage laws raise inflation, thus sticking all consumers with an unnecessary and economically unhealthy "tax hike."

California's position is more tenuous than those of most other states. Businesses there already face high taxes and a poor business climate. Yet another hike in the cost of doing business could spur an exodus to Nevada, Arizona, and other states where such costs are far lower.

It includes a CapWiz-type e-mail form and sample message.

The "I Vote Values" Campaign
Topic: Election / Voting
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Three cheers to the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission for development of "I Vote Values," a voter awareness and voter registration effort aimed at mobilizing those infamous 4 million conservative Christians who failed to vote in the 2000 presidential election.

The ivotevalues.com site is replete with resources for pastors and churches, and includes legal guidelines on how churches may engage in civic involvement without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. It's likely most church leaders are unaware of how broad a range of activities and speech is permitted.

From the 2000 election crisis, the Democrat party's strategists learned that they could, in theory, use lawyers and judicial fiat to muscle the electoral system in the same way they have strong-armed the legislative process, wielding judges who create law rather than interpret it. John Kerry has legal teams poised to litigate election results in every state, should they fail to cut his way. Imagine the turmoil should the Democrats choose to do in a dozen states what they did in Florida in 2000. Wide margins of victory for President Bush are the sole prevention for such a debacle. Four million conservative Christian votes would certainly help to provide that cushion.

Update: In today's Wall Street Journal, John Fund has more on the looming election crisis:

Mr. Gore's decision to contest the Florida election in 2000 until the bitter end may have permanently changed the way close elections are decided, in much the same way that judicial nomination battles have changed. If the election is close this November, endless lawsuits and recriminations could poison of [sic]public opinion and create a climate of illegitimacy around any final winner. Voters are used to having the final word in an election. Let's take steps to keep it that way, so we can minimize the use of scorched-earth tactics of trial lawyers to settle elections. The Floridification of our politics isn't something anyone should want.

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

[Ed. Note: This entry is identical to one I posted shortly after Nick Berg's murder. Sadly, the only change necessary was to the victim's name. The issues raised remain the same.]

Does anyone believe that the scum who murdered Mr. Johnson 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.

Death by Stupidity
Topic: Homeland Security
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Have space aliens secretly come to earth and sucked out the brains of the Republican leadership?

From the Washington Times:

Special checks on Muslims at border to end

Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- The Bush administration has pledged to stop special security checks imposed on adult males entering the United States from mainly Muslim countries.

Those targeted are mostly from countries considered a risk for terrorism.

"Our long term goal", senior homeland security official Asa Hutchinson told Arab civil rights leaders Friday, "is to treat (all visitors) the same way, and not based on where you come from."

Hutchinson also distinguished the approach of the Department of Homeland Security from that of other parts of the administration, notably Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department, United Press International reported.

Under the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System or NSEERS, introduced in November 2002, male visa-holders coming to the United States from any one of 25 listed nations have had to undergo special screening, including being fingerprinted, photographed and interviewed at ports of entry.

The countries include Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iran. Apart from North Korea, they are all majority-Muslim nations.

Daniel Pipes, at his weblog, comments:

By way of background, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), described as a "system designed to protect U.S. citizens from terrorism," requires male visa-holders to undergo special screening, including being fingerprinted, photographed, and interviewed at ports of entry. Other than North Korea (clearly thrown in as eye-wash; how many North Koreans have you met wondering the streets of America?), all the nationalities have majority-Muslim populations.

I understand and commend the DHS concern for fair play. But I have two questions for Asa Hutchinson: Can you seriously assure me that homeland security is maintained by this step? And what will you say should a terrorist get through who otherwise, through fingerprinting, photographing, and interviewing, would have been stopped from entering the country? When political correctness trumps security, the results cannot be good.

President Bush and his administration have made it clear that the war on Islamic terror will be a long one, so why a pledge to end a program that could be a crucial component of homeland defense for decades? Use the White House contact page to insist President Bush rescind this insane pledge.

Last Chance for the Broadcast Decency Act
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

The Family Research Council reports:

The Broadcast Decency Act, which would increase tenfold the fines that the FCC can levy, was passed overwhelmingly in the House, and now has its last chance in the Senate.

The bill's author, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), has said he will introduce a clean version of his legislation as part of the Department of Defense Authorization. The American public, President Bush, the FCC and the U.S. House of Representatives realize that only by greatly increasing FCC fines will these multi-billion companies get the message, why can't the U.S. Senate get the same message?

If this attempt fails we will not get another chance this year! Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner's office needs to be contacted immediately (202/224-2023) and be shown your strong support for Senator Brownback's broadcast decency amendment (S.Amdt.3235 to S.2400).

Click here for an e-mail form and sample message, addressed to the Armed Services Committee Chairman.

Protect the Pledge With H.R. 2028
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

An alert from the Family Research Council on one of the pending pieces of legislation which would remove jurisdiction from our tyrannical courts:

Legislation to Protect the Pledge from Courts

In response to the decision by the Supreme Court to throw
out a challenge to the reference 'under God' in the Pledge of
Allegiance Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) is pushing for
consideration of his bill, the Pledge of Allegiance Protection
Act, H.R. 2028. The legislation would use Article III of the
Constitution to remove the jurisdiction of lower federal
courts to rule on the Pledge. This is a simple way for
Congress to assert its legislative authority over the courts and
protect the rule of law.

For too long the courts have been undermining the
foundations of our country with decisions that fly in the face
of democratically enacted legislation, not to mention the
intention of the Founding Fathers. This bill would be the first
and important step in pushing back against irresponsible
judges and court decisions.

By passing the Pledge Protection Act Congress would be
reaffirming the rightful use of the phrase 'under God' as an
important part of America's culture and history while
preserving the Pledge from future litigation.

Contact your Representative in support of H.R. 2028!

The alert includes an easy-to-use e-mail form, complete with a sample message you can customize. (Be sure to check the "remember me" box. This will set a cookie file on your computer, so that whenever you return to the FRC alerts section, your name and address will be automatically filled in on the form.)

Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons, Part 11
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial noted the indifference with which the "international community," and possibly even the Bush administration, is treating the Iranian mullahs' nuclear weapons program:

We've heard a disturbing number of quiet remarks in Washington and other Western capitals recently to the effect that the world will just have to "get used to" the idea of the Iranians having nukes. Have these people thought through the consequences of such resignation? With the presumed American security umbrella suddenly jeopardized by the mullahs' bomb, the political calculations of every Mideast government would change. Many countries may conclude they themselves have no choice but to go nuclear, and the world could be off to another nuclear arms race.

Last year the U.S. deferred to the Europeans as they brokered an inspection agreement with Iran that the mullahs have since violated with impunity. In other words, the "multilateral" diplomatic path is failing. The question is whether anyone important is going to admit this reality. If not, we at least hope Washington is preparing covert and military options to sabotage the Iranian program, and to step up aid to those Iranians wishing a fundamental change in their terror-sponsoring regime. History will not look kindly on the leaders who let Iran get the bomb on their watch.

Let's hope the Bush administration's retreat to the ropes is only a tactic -- a setup for a post-election knockout punch. If not, then the WSJ is correct in predicting a Mideast arms race. The race will be a short one, however, since the new weapons will be detonated soon after their manufacture. Mutual Assured Destruction worked because those on both sides of the Cold War wanted to live. But for the jihadis, a heavenly whorehouse full of virgins awaits "martyrs" who murder westerners in general, and Jews and Christians in particular.

Use the White House contact page to again remind President Bush that you will support prevention of the Iranian Islamic Bomb by all available means.

The Cost of Complacency
Topic: World War IV
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

A recent Barna Research Group survey portends a repeat of the near-disastrous 2000 presidential election, and offers this sobering warning:

The research pointed out one particular caution for the President's campaign. "Getting his supporters to actually turnout on Election Day will be critical for Mr. Bush. Currently, there is the danger of his most ardent supporters - the evangelicals - failing to show up because they are so firmly convinced he will win. 81% say the President will win in November; only 6% predict a victory by Mr. Kerry. Non-evangelical born agains are not quite as confident, but they are twice as likely to believe victory will go to Mr. Bush as to expect Mr. Kerry to win. Should that confidence deflate turnout among the Bush support base, a close election could swing to a different outcome."

Some have estimated that four million Evangelicals sat out the 2000 presidential election. That complacency nearly caused the calamity of an Al Gore presidency in wartime. Now we are faced with the threat of John Kerry presidency, which would result in a de facto surrender in the war on terror. (Kerry has indicated that, like Bill Clinton, he will treat Islamic terror attacks as crimes, not acts of war.)

Evangelicals who plan to shun the polls have less than five months to realize the error of their ways. If they do not, they, along with Kerry supporters, will get the government they deserve. Unfortunately, so will the rest of us.

Red Cross: Charge Saddam or Release Him
Topic: World War IV
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Already infamous for its anti-Semitism, the International Committee of the Red Cross has managed to sink to a new low:

Red Cross ultimatum to US on Saddam

Release him, charge him or break international law, Bush told

Saddam Hussein must either be released from custody by June 30 or charged if the US and the new Iraqi government are to conform to international law, the International Committee of the Red Cross said last night.

Nada Doumani, a spokeswoman for the ICRC, told the Guardian: "The United States defines Saddam Hussein as a prisoner of war. At the end of an occupation PoWs have to be released provided they have no penal charges against them."

You can express your outrage at the ICRC contact page.

Clean Up the Broadcast Decency Act
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council suggests a course of action for jumpstarting the Broadcast Decency Act, currently stalled in the Senate:

The FCC has reached a $1.7 million settlement with Clear Channel Communications Inc., the nation's largest radio company, which would clear them of all pending charges of indecency. While this might seem like a victory for our side the fine means little to a company with billion-dollar revenues. The Broadcast Decency Act, which would increase tenfold the fines that the FCC can levy was passed overwhelmingly in the House, but now is mired in the Senate - being held up by Senators who are using the bill to weigh it down with numerous amendments. Only by greatly increasing FCC fines will these enormous companies get the message. Why can't the U.S. Senate get the same message? Some of these amendments deserve our future attention, but not at the cost of this bill. I urge you to contact Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Ensign (R-NV), Trent Lott (R-MS), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) Ted Stevens (R-AK) and John Sununu (R-NH) and ask them to set aside their amendments so that a clean version of the Broadcast Decency Act can be voted on by the full Senate and signed by the President. You can contact your Senators [here].