More Thought Crime in Britain
Topic: Judicial Tyranny
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

From BBC News:

New religious hate laws unveiled

The home secretary wants to criminalise inciting religious hatred.

Inciting religious hatred is to be made a criminal offence under plans unveiled by Home Secretary David Blunkett.

The government failed to get laws introducing the offence passed by Parliament in the wake of the US terror attacks in 2001.

In a speech in London, Mr Blunkett revived the proposals.

He said he was returning to the plans as there was a need to stop people being abused or targeted just because they held a particular religious faith.

Will these new laws be used to punish the hatred spewed by UK Islamic groups such as Al Muhajiroun? No chance. Western civilization phobia is not considered a problem in Britain, but "Islamophobia" is.

Islamophobia fear

"Extending anti-discrimination law is only worthwhile if we actually change the processes on the ground," he said in a keynote speech to left-leaning think tank the Institute of Public Policy Research.

Earlier he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the legislation would not curb people's right to express their view of other people's religions.

"The issue is not whether you have an argument or discussion or whether you are criticising someone's religion. It's whether you incite hatred on the basis of it," he said.

There is already an offence of inciting racial hatred but this does not offer protection if someone is being targeted because of their religion.

The government is worried in particular about discrimination against Muslims.

The home secretary believes the law change would help tackle religious extremists who preach against other religions.

And the material difference between "criticizing" a religion and "preaching against" it is . . . what? Imagine the havoc judges and prosecutors could wreak, armed with a law containing this kind of ambiguous language. And, once again, don't imagine it can't happen here in the US.

FMA Vote Next Week
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

An alert from Focus on the Family's CitizenLink Daily Update:

**Contact Your Senators Now!**

The Senate will take up the Federal Marriage Amendment
(FMA) next week and your help is needed. There are still
senators who have either not committed themselves, or who
have indicated they will oppose this highly important
legislation. The FMA is a proposed amendment to the U.S.
Constitution which will help to protect marriage by
defining it as between one man and one woman.

For information on the Federal Marriage Amendment, and how
to contact your senators, please see the "Federal Marriage
Amendment Action Center."

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0031537.cfm

For information on special events scheduled for this Sunday, visit the Protect Marriage Sunday and We Vote Values websites.

FBI Honors US Enemies
Topic: Homeland Security
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In a recent article, The FBI Loses Its Way, Daniel Pipes Observes:

It's time to worry when the Federal Bureau of Investigation, America's national police agency, consistently cannot figure out who's friend and who's foe in the war on terror.

The bureau's record of honoring the wrong American Muslims captures this problem.

• In February 2001, it promoted Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, a special agent who rejected a counterterror assignment on the grounds that "a Muslim does not record another Muslim."
  
• In May 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller had his spokesman call the American Muslim Council "the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States," despite its record of helping fund-raise for terrorism. Today, the AMC's long-time leader sits in jail and the organization is virtually defunct.
  
• In September 2003, the FBI nearly bestowed its Exceptional Public Service Award on Imad Hamad of Detroit, saved from this embarrassment by columnist Debbie Schlussel, who exposed Hamad in the New York Post as someone who "supports terrorism and [who] was himself a suspected terrorist."

A few weeks ago, the bureau did it again, honoring Marwan Kreidie, a Philadelphia activist, with its Community Leadership Award for his being "very helpful to the FBI office," and specifically for his efforts "in identifying, preventing and disrupting acts of terrorism." Celebrating Kreidie raises deep concerns about the FBI's continuing inability to understand the war it is fighting.

Pipes goes on to delineate the myriad condemnations Kreidie has heaped upon US anti-terrorism efforts, including allegations of "assaults on human rights" perpetrated by President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft..

This is scary stuff. The country's leading law enforcement agency has shown a consistent patten of rewarding those who attack us. It is clear a State Department mentality, one of appeasement and naive diplomacy, has overtaken the FBI. If you would like to express your opposition to such policy, you can contact the FBI here, and use our Take Action page to copy President Bush, your Senators and Representative.

Kerry's Abortion Hypocrisy
Topic: Election / Voting
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In today's Washington Update, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins makes an excellent point:

Sen. John Kerry has selected a vice presidential running mate whose Senate record mirrors his own. Both John Kerry and John Edwards have a zero percent rating from FRC, and a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, and both men have a history of opposing judicial nominees simply because of their deeply held religious beliefs. As recently as this weekend, Sen. Kerry stated that his personal belief that life begins at conception should not keep him from serving as President because it does not influence his public policy record. However, both he and Sen. Edwards have repeatedly refused to extend that same courtesy - the presumption that one's religious beliefs shouldn't disqualify him from public service - to countless judicial nominees who happen to be pro-life. Today the U.S. Senate will hold a vote on judicial nominee Leon Holmes. Mr. Holmes has been attacked by Kerry and Edwards' Democratic colleagues not because of a spotty judicial record, but rather simply because he holds private, Christian beliefs. If Sen. Kerry is such a defender of the ability to harbor private beliefs without allowing them to impact public decisions, he should call off his colleagues who are bashing Mr. Holmes as if he is unable to do the same. If Catholic beliefs do not disqualify John Kerry from being a U.S. President, those same beliefs shouldn't disqualify Mr. Holmes from becoming a federal judge.

Additional Resources:

Confirmation of Arkansas Judge

http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=AL04G01&f=WU04G03&t=e

The update links to a CapWiz-type form you can use to lobby your senators in support of Mr. Holmes.

Thought Crime in Britain
Topic: Judicial Tyranny
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Back in January, I and many others blogged the plight of BBC chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk, who faced prosecution for the crime of accurately describing the Arab world in a Sunday Express opinion piece. Finally, a decision has been made that Kilroy-Silk will not be charged.

The The Crown Prosecution Service seems really, really depressed over their inability to throw Mr. Kilroy-Silk in jail for his criminal thoughts. Well, maybe next time.

No charge for Kilroy-Silk over anti-Arab piece

Fri July 02, 2004 05:54 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Robert Kilroy-Silk, the former talk show host and now European Parliament member for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), will not be charged over a newspaper article condemning Arabs. [Ed. Note: Typical Reuters editorializing. The article, in fact, does not "condemn Arabs," but condemns Arab regimes and Arabs who loathe the West. Kilroy-Silk clarified this at the time of the controversy.]

The Crown Prosecution Service said on Friday it had advised police that no action should be taken over the article, published in January. . . .

"I acknowledge that many people found this article shocking and abusive and were deeply insulted by it," said Sue Taylor of the Crown Prosecution Service.

"But however offensive the material might be, we are constrained by law as to what we can and cannot prosecute and in this case we have had to advise the police that a criminal offence has not been committed," she added.

A former Labour MP, the outspoken Kilroy-Silk joined UKIP after losing his chat show and led the party to their best-ever results in last month's European elections.

The party is pledged to pulling Britain out of the European Union.

Since I know nothing about Kilroy-Silk's opinions on other issues, I can neither endorse or condemn them. But just imagine what it must have been like, waiting six months to learn whether you might be tried and jailed for the transgression of publishing your verifiable, fact-based opinions.

And while you're imagining that, don't imagine it can't happen here.

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

CitizenLink Daily Update reports:

Swedish Pastor Jailed For Preaching Against Homosexuality

It has happened -- a pastor in Sweden, speaking from the
pulpit the truth about homosexuality, is going to jail,
Ecumenical News International reported.

Under a law against incitement, Pastor Ake Green, a member
of the Pentecostal movement, was sentenced to a month in
prison for describing homosexuality as "abnormal -- a
horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society" in a
sermon. His words offended some homosexuals.

Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish federation
for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights believes
that religious freedom should not be used "as a reason to
offend people" and agrees with the sentence.

As one who heard the reports said, "I guess that shows the
true face of gay tolerance -- (which is) intolerance."

Let's, for the sake of argument, say that this pastor's beliefs about homosexuality are morally wrong. The fact remains that he was jailed not for committing any crime against homosexuals but simply for having and expressing these ideas. Europe is full of university professors who view the traditional nuclear family as an evil, oppressive institution. Will any of them be prosecuted for their hateful ideas? London is home to a nest of vipers who venerate Osama bin Laden and display posters celebrating the 9-11 murder-suicide-hijackers. Will this group be prosecuted for its active incitement to violence? The answer in both cases is: Not bloody likely.

It is clear that soon, throughout Europe, it will be a crime to criticize homosexual practice. The same can happen in the US, and the recent Ted Kennedy-sponsored hate crimes amendment to the defense authorization bill, now headed for a House/Senate conference committee hearing, represents a major step in this process of codifying the concept of thought crime in American law.

If homosexual activists refrain from harming others, they are entitled to our tolerance. But they are not entitled to control of our thoughts. Use our Take Action page to ask your Senators and Representative to support removal of the Kennedy/Smith hate crimes legislation from the defense authorization bill.

Porn and Political Speech
Topic: Judicial Tyranny
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Today's Wall Street Journal editorial page has some fine observations on the Supreme Court's twisted logic concerning free speech:

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the Supreme Court seems to be providing more First Amendment protection to pornography than to political speech?

This seems to be a fair question following the Court's decision this week to frown upon, for the third time in eight years, a Congressional law attempting to protect minors from sexually explicit material on the Internet. In contrast, the same Court was only too happy last year to endorse the substantial limits on political speech that were part of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform. Somehow we doubt this is what the Founders had in mind in passing the Bill of Rights.

And while pornographers have free access to your children, clergy do not:

School Officials Censor Biblical Views on Homosexuality

(AgapePress) - The Windsor Locks (Connecticut) School District has caved in to the demands of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union (CCLU), which recently threatened the district with an injunction if its officials allowed local clergy to give a biblical presentation on homosexuality at Windsor Locks High School.

This past May, Windsor Locks School District had permitted a group called the Stonewall Speakers to visit the high school and promote the homosexual lifestyle. Representatives of the Stonewall Speakers claim their organization was not there to encourage students to pursue homosexuality or lesbianism as a lifestyle, but to discourage bigotry and violence by dispelling myths about homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people.

Still, some local clergy and members of the public felt the pro-homosexual presentation needed to be balanced, and the school district agreed to allow a group to come into the school and present a religious perspective on the issue. However, when the CCLU threatened legal action, district officials decided to cancel the planned clergy presentation.

GetTheKidsOut.org
Topic: Education Monopoly
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

A new, highly useful and delightfully named website, GetTheKidsOut.org (a project of the Alliance for Separation of School & State) offers this mission statement:

Assist Christians to work within their own denominations to alert parents of the staggering loss of faith and morals in children who attend the officially neutral "public schools," and help them find ways to move children into Christian education, whether in campus schools or homeschooling. . . .

You can use us as a clearinghouse to find others in your denomination who are alarmed about the loss of youth to the world. You will find on this website a growing collection of resolutions and other ideas you can adapt for your own use.

I was particularly impressed with the array of alternative schooling topics offered at this Alliance link. They include "Homeschooling," "Homeschooling resources for parents with limited time," "Private schooling," Scholarships," "Alternatives to private or homeschooling," and "Online schooling."

And Recently in the News:

Reason number 1,152 to get the kids out: 4.5M Kids Victims of School Sex Misconduct [Hat tip: E-Involved].

Final Push Before FMA Vote
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

An alert from the Family Research Council:

For the past several months we've repeatedly asked you to contact your Senators. The reason is not only because we know that being inundated with constituent calls and emails is effective in changing the way an elected official votes, but also because in almost every meeting we have on Capitol Hill we're told that Senators are not hearing from "the people." As you know, the Senate will hold a vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting marriage during the week of July 12th, and it is vital that all of us do all that we can in advance of that pivotal test for the amendment.

On our website, we've listed the names of the Senators we consider to be "high priority," meaning we think your pressure can make a difference in the way these Senators vote. Please look over the list to see if your Senator is on it. If so, with just one click you'll see all their contact information, including phone numbers for their district offices which are particularly useful now that Senators are home for the July 4th holiday. Please - go to the link below and do your part today.

Senators on the "High Priority" Contact List (Re-election Information Included) http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=AL04F06&f=WU04F25&t=e

Your Tax Dollars at Work: Killing Chinese Fetuses
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

An alert from Focus on the Family's CitizenLink:

New Effort to Fund UNFPA in Offing

Liberal lawmakers are once again trying to funnel your tax dollars to an organization some say finances forced abortions in China.

The House International Relations Committee will attempt next week to restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), a group that has been charged with using your tax dollars to promote forced abortion in China.

Sarah Craven, a spokeswoman for the UNFPA, said she is hopeful the United States will restore the funding.

"The U.S. is a leader in population and family planning and . . . is the largest bilateral provider of family planning assistance throughout the world," Craven said. "So we see the U.S. as a leader in this area and we would hope to once again receive their funding and their support."

But Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute said funding UNFPA is a bad idea.

"They've been involved in China's 'one child' policy from the beginning," Mosher said. "This is a policy that involves forced abortion, forced sterilization and forced contraception. It's one that the American people would not want us to be funding and that the Bush administration has made a very wise decision not to fund."
A 2002 letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell to Congress, in fact, said the UNFPA had provided computers and vehicles to the Chinese government to enforce China's family-planning policy. He also said that UNPFA violated a 1985 law banning the United States from giving money to agencies involved in forced abortion or sterilization.

Michael Schwartz, vice president of governmental relations at Concerned Women for America, said the committee vote to restore funding via amendment sponsored by Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., will be extremely close.

"If Lowey has her way, we'll be faced with another crisis," Schwartz said, "a showdown between Congress and the president on whether the United States should begin to export abortion. We've never done that."

Schwartz said people need to get in touch with their representatives in Congress to let them know they support the Bush administration policy of refusing to fund any organization involved in coerced abortion or sterilization.

You would think that even the most strident pro-choicers would be against abortion by force, but for some there is just no such thing as a bad abortion. Population control may, in certain nations, and by legitimate contraceptive methods, be a noble pursuit, but all civilized people ought to agree it should not be achieved by this kind of coercion.

The alert includes a link to the CitizenLink Action Center, for assistance in asking your Representative to oppose any action to restore U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund.

Sex Ed and Cooties
Topic: Education Monopoly
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In a June 24th essay for the BreakPoint website, Marcia Segelstein recounts what she describes as her "through-the-looking-glass" experiences with the Education Monopoly:

An assembly is planned for the elementary grades called "Cootie Shots." Its aim, parents were told, is to present an anti-bullying message. "Cootie Shots" is a series of theatrical skits developed by Fringe Benefits, a coalition of theater activists whose self-described aim is "to build bridges between gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) youth and their straight peers, teachers and parents." Parents were not informed of that little tidbit. Fortunately, the internet does have its uses. Finding the connection, I thought it prudent to enquire whether this "anti-bullying" program might have any content related to homosexuality. (Heaven forbid we might actually be advised about any such material without having to ask!) Ah, yes, just one skit: "The Duke Who Outlawed Jelly Beans."

Well, as you can probably guess, the Duke does more than outlaw jellybeans. He issues this royal proclamation: "Hear ye, hear ye: Since I grew up with just one mother and one father, and I turned out so well, I proclaim that this arrangement will work best for everyone. In one week any children who have too many mothers or fathers, or not enough, will be thrown into the dungeon." Anna and her two "mommies," to whom we've already been introduced are, naturally, horrified. They realize that Anna's friend, Nicholas, will be at risk since he has two "dads." And then there's Gaston, who lives with his grandparents, and poor Scarlett, who "just has one mom and no dads." In the end, the wise children prevail, and the Duke leaves town utterly humiliated.

The skit is hardly what you'd call subtle. But more importantly, it has nothing to do with bullying. It has to do with mocking the notion that children fare best when raised with their two married parents. Once upon a time that notion was simple common sense. Fortunately, since common sense no longer prevails, we have scientific studies that reinforce that notion instead.

Mrs. Segelstein lives in Connecticut. And it's a good thing she does, since in Pennsylvania writing a hateful phrase such as "children fare best when raised with two married parents" could be a crime. (See "More Thought Crimes Legislation" below.)

Be sure to read the whole piece, and learn what she discovered at a screening of a video to be shown to fifth graders: "What Kids Want to Know About Sex and Growing Up." (Hint: Dr. Dobson, it ain't.)

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

In a recent piece in heritage.org's commentary section, the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes does a fine job of summarizing the Iranian Islamic Bomb crisis:

If the international community lets Iran go nuclear, the U.N.'s Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) would become a laughingstock, and no longer serve as a deterrent to nuclear proliferation. (Over the weekend, Tehran hinted, via a regime-friendly newspaper, at withdrawing from the NPT.)

A nuclear Iran would undermine stability in region, threatening the new Iraqi and Afghan governments and giving Syria and the Saudis strong incentive to go nuclear, too.

And Iran has long-range missiles on the drawing table -- so NATO, Israel and the United States will become at risk.

It seems obvious: The Iranians aren't interested in negotiations -- they're interested in having the bomb.

His conclusion is, unfortunately, not so perceptive:

. . .It's time for the U.N. Security Council to insist on broad, multilateral economic sanctions. . . .

We've tried to counter Iran's nuclear intentions through mommy-coddling diplomatic means for long enough: That approach has failed miserably.

It's time we all recognize this fact and agree to take the matter to the Security Council for more drastic action.

I'm no Heritage Foundation scholar, but something tells me UN sanctions will be, to put it kindly, less than effective. You'll recall Saddam managed to build a raft of palaces and remain quite fat and happy while under sanctions.

The ballistic sanctions the Israelis rained down on his Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 worked quite well, however.

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.