Tonight's Homework Assignment: Watch TV
Topic: Cultural Civil War
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Who says miracles never happen?

According to Jonathan V. Last, online editor of The Weekly Standard, a TV network's miniseries addresses the war on Islamic terror and, amazingly, gets it right:

More Power to "The Grid"

Hollywood finally tackles the war on terrorism, and the result is better than you could have possibly hoped for.
by Jonathan V. Last

THOSE OF YOU who have paid attention to popular culture over the last three years know about Hollywood's uncomfortable views on terrorism.

For the most part, Hollywood ignores the war on terror. Since September 11, 2001, only a handful of movies and TV shows have been produced that mention the attacks on America. The broader subject of the war on terrorism has been addressed barely at all. And the war in Iraq has been taken up only twice, in documentaries--The Control Room and Farenheit 9/11 which are largely critical of America and fawning of the Islamists with whom we are at war.

So if I told you that TNT was airing a mini-series, called The Grid, about the war on terror, you would know what to expect: Sympathetic, over-burdened Muslims and Americans who, when not fighting silly bureaucratic turf-wars, were waging brutal, destructive, real ones. As it turns out, you would be wrong. The Grid is the bravest, most-daring piece of entertainment in years. . . .

[I]t is impossible to ignore how ground-breaking this show is: It is the entertainment industry's first unvarnished look at the clash of Western civilization and Islamist terrorism. It is the first work not to white-wash the problems some strains of Islam pose. It is the first time Hollywood has gazed at the new world we live in and not been blinded by the glare of political correctness. The Grid is to be applauded on every level.

The Grid airs at 9:00 pm Mondays on TNT. If after watching it you agree with Mr. Last's assessment, be sure to visit the Ask TNT Page, where you can send your praise via e-mail.

Evil in the Name of Christ
Topic: Church & Politics
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In his most recent column, Dennis Prager heaps righteous indignation upon The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) for what is, in essence, a policy in support of the destruction of Israel:

I have argued in this column that the greatest sin is committing evil in God's name. As bad as the evil committed by secularists, such as communists and Nazis, has ever been, the most grievous evil is that which is committed in the name of God. For not only do religious evils harm their victims, they also do lasting damage to God-based morality, which those of us who believe in God and religion consider the only viable antidote to evil.

That is why Islamic terror is so evil. Not only because it targets the most innocent of people for death and torture, but because it does so in the name of Allah and Islam.

Incredibly, The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) joins the list of religious groups committing evil. In the name of Jesus, it has called for the economic strangulation of Israel. They have equated the Jewish state with South Africa during apartheid and called for a universal divestment from it.

The Presbyterians are the first Christian church to do this, and, ironically, the divestment campaign came the very week that the Roman Catholic Church signed a document equating anti- Zionism with anti-Semitism.

It takes a particularly virulent strain of moral idiocy and meanness to single out Israel, not Arafat's Palestinian Authority, or terror-supporting, death-fatwa-issuing Iran, or women- subjugating Saudi Arabia, for condemnation and economic ruin. One of the most decent societies, one of the most liberal democracies in the world, is fighting for its life against Islamic fascists who praise the Holocaust and publicly call for the annihilation of Israel -- and the Presbyterian Church calls for strangling Israel!. . . .

This is one of the morality-clarifying issues of our time. To single out Israel for economic strangulation while that good nation fights for its life is an act of such immorality that holding that view precludes one from the title "good" or "God-fearing," for if they are true to God, I am false to Him. If they are good, I who support Israel am bad. If their Bible teaches them to strangle Israel and support Yasser Arafat, I am guided by a different Bible.

They have drawn a line. It is now time for good people, Presbyterians specifically, Christians generally, to distance themselves vigorously and publicly from this morally sick church. And it is time, once again, for Jews to realize that the enemies of the Jews in our day are to be found on the Christian Left while their friends are far more often on the Christian right.

After the publication of Dennis' column, The stated clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church issued a statement attempting a backpedal from the resolution. In it, the clerk claims the assembly "authorized exploration of a selective divestment of church funds from those companies whose business in Israel is found to be directly or indirectly causing harm or suffering to innocent people." But the language of the resolution itself is clear:

Refers to Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) with instructions to initiate a process of phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel, in accordance to General Assembly policy on social investing, and to make appropriate recommendations to the General Assembly Council for action.

And check out the obnoxious moral equivalence between Israel's defensive maneuvers and Palestinians' murder of innocents:

Horrific acts of violence and deadly attacks on innocent people, whether carried out by Palestinian "suicide bombers" or by the Israeli military, are abhorrent and inexcusable by all measures, and are a dead-end alternative to a negotiated settlement of the conflict

That the General Assembly is in retreat mode is a promising sign that maybe, just maybe it will reverse its policy. But don't hold your breath. In any case, you can express your disgust to the stated clerk of the General Assembly here.

Euros Plot to Arm China

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

Heritage Foundation scholar Peter Brookes opines on a looming threat which, regrettably but understandably, has been upstaged in the press by war news:

The French and the Germans are trying to stick it to us again. No, not over Iraq -- over China.

The 25-nation European Union (EU), led by Paris and Berlin, is giving serious consideration to lifting the post-Tiananmen Square arms embargo against Beijing.

Even though we've made our objections perfectly clear, from President Bush on down. (America's top Pacific allies, Japan and Australia, have also protested.)

This means that at some point in the future, the weapons of European allies may be used against American forces in the Pacific over the defense of Taiwan, Japan or even South Korea.

. . .

The EU's decision to change course on China is counterproductive and counterintuitive, but not surprising: Europe's security interests in Asia are minimal and, hey, there's cash to be made.

But if the EU goes ahead, our government should stop the flow of U.S. military technology to European firms.

In the end, the EU's folly will further increase the trans-Atlantic divide, give an imprimatur to dismal human-rights records everywhere and increase the likelihood of conflict in the Pacific, which is no one's interest -- not even the distant EU's.

Read the full article here. And for a link to and excerpts from another fine Heritage Foundation article on this issue, see our March entry Chinese to Order Out . . . to Europe.

Protect the DOMA From Judicial Tyranny With H.R. 3313
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Family News in Focus reports on the House effort to defend against a federal judicial redefinition of marriage in defiance of the will of the people:

The Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313 -- authored by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., -- would stop federal courts from striking down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America, said Hostettler's legislation is the right medicine at the right moment.

"The Marriage Protection Act is a modest, straightforward way to keep federal judges from trashing marriage laws," Knight explained. "It's not the whole answer, and we still need a federal constitutional amendment to keep judges at the state and federal level from destroying marriage."

Sonja Swiatkiewicz, state issues analyst at Focus on the Family, agreed that the proposed legislation, if passed, would not be as effective as a federal constitutional amendment.
"While this bill would protect the federal DOMA from being struck down, it does not address the state DOMA statutes and constitutional amendments," she explained. "They would most certainly remain in danger of being voided by judicial fiat."

Charlie Jarvis of the United Seniors Association said our Founding Fathers would find today's judicial tyranny an outrageous offense to the Constitution and their original intentions because they never intended the courts to be de facto policy-makers unaccountable to other branches of government.

Lori Waters, executive director of the Eagle Forum, said Congress has the jurisdiction to limit the powers of the courts, which have wreaked havoc on our culture through decisions like Massachusetts' legalization of homosexual marriage.

"It's about re-establishing the balance of powers between the judiciary, the legislative and the executive branch," Waters said. "While Congress will probably continue to debate a constitutional amendment into future sessions, they can take action immediately by a simple majority to protect the federal Defense of Marriage Act and send a very strong message to the judges . . . that they will not redefine marriage."

Waters further explained that marriage belongs to the people and no one else.

The article includes a link to the CitizenLink Action Center, for help in contacting your representative. A floor vote has been scheduled for Thursday, July 22nd.

Israel Ready to Save Western Civilization, Again
Topic: Nuclear Terrorism
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Heartening news from WorldNetDaily:

Israel Ready to Strike Iran

Israel has conducted military exercises for a pre-emptive strike against several of Iran's nuclear power facilities and is ready to attack if Russia supplies Iran with rods for enriching uranium, Israeli officials told reporters.

An Israeli defense source in Tel Aviv told the London Sunday Times, which first published the story, that "Israel will on no account permit Iranian reactors - especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help - to go critical."

The source was also quoted as saying that any strike on Iran's reactors would probably be carried out by long-range F-15I jets, flying over Turkey, with simultaneous operations by commandos on the ground.

Russia is expected to deliver the enriching rods, currently being stored at a Russian port, late next year after a dispute over financial terms is resolved.

"If the worst comes to the worst and international efforts fail," the source said, "we are very confident we'll be able to demolish the ayatollah's nuclear aspirations in one go."

The source explained that any strike could be accompanied by an attack on other Iranian targets, including a facility at Natanz, where the Iranians have attempted to enrich uranium, and a plant at Arak, which International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors suspect of nuclear activity.

The Sunday Times also quoted a senior U.S. official warning of a pre-emptive Israeli strike if Russia continues cooperating with the Iranians. He said Washington was unlikely to block Israeli attacks against Iran.

Let's hope "unlikely to block" means the US also will not take the shameful position it took in 1981, joining the fictitious "international community" in condemning Israel's civilization-saving attack on Saddam's Osirak nuclear reactor.

Recent reports on the Bush administration strategy look promising. Sky News reports:

Bush Sets Sights on Iran

The American government has reportedly set it sights on toppling the regime in Iran if it wins a new term in office.

The US wants to trigger a revolt within Iran by stoking up dissent among the population, a White House official told The Times.

The claim came as an Iranian minister said intelligence services had dismantled all branches of
the country's al Qaeda network.

Iran is part of the "axis of evil" named by the US President along with Iraq and North Korea.

But unlike the toppling of Saddam Hussein, The Times said a change in Iran's rulers would not come about through military action.

However, the anonymous official, known to be a hawk, hinted at a possible strike against Iran's contentious nuclear programme.

Iran has agreed to defuse its nuclear threat but the US remains unconvinced.

"If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran," the official said.

Now ask yourself, would John "I'll-make-the-French-like-us-again" Kerry take such action?

If you would like to again express your support for regime change in Iran and a strike against Iranian nuclear targets before the reactors go critical, you can contact the White House here, and use our Take Action page to copy your Senators and Representative.

Child Custody Protection Act Scheduled for House Hearing
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

The Susan B. Anthony List reports:

Child Custody Protection Act Finally Gets A Hearing in the House

On Tuesday, July 20th, for the first time since Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen introduced it in 2003, there will be a hearing on the Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA) before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. The bill would make it a crime to circumvent a state's laws governing parental involvement in minors abortion by taking a pregnant minor across state lines.

"The Child Custody Protection Act [H.R.1755] will not only uphold the laws of our country, but it will give back to parents the right to parent, it will strengthen family bonds and most importantly, it will ensure that America's youth have a safer, healthier, and brighter future," said Rep. Ros-Lehtinen.

Under current law, if a state has laws governing parental notification or consent those laws may be bypassed by taking a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. As a consequence, parents may never know if their daughter has had an abortion.

The law would make exceptions, however, for cases in which the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother.

The alert includes a CapWiz-type form and sample letter you can transmit to your Representative and Senator.

Senate Says, "Let the black-robed tyrants decide"
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Family Research Council's Washington Update reports:

50 Senators Invite Unelected Judges to Redefine Marriage

With 48 Senators in favor and 50 Senators against, the procedural vote was 12 votes short of the 60 needed to get the amendment to the Senate floor for an up or down vote. This was round one in the debate over marriage and now that it is over, we begin training for round two. I believe the pro-family forces have benefited from the debate over the past few days in two ways: One, every time this issue is forced into the public square, the opposition to same-sex "marriage" among the American public grows. Second, we now know which Senators are for traditional marriage and which ones want to allow unelected judges to usher same-sex marriage down the isle, and by November, so will voters in every state. Would we have preferred a knockout in the first round? Of course. But we've known from the beginning that this was going to be a long fight. What we didn't know was just how little regard Senators on the left would have for the hundreds of thousands of calls and letters that American's sent expressing the "will of the people" on this issue.

Comments made by Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) were quite telling when, after admitting she had received over 50,000 pieces of mail on the subject, she said, "People do not understand that the Constitution relegates family law to the States...". Of course, it is Sen. Feinstein who doesn't seem to understand that state laws can be overturned with the stroke of a judicial pen and that the only way to protect states' rights on this issue is to pass a constitutional amendment.

And then there is Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) who said in response to the argument that the Supreme Court might rule in favor of homosexual "marriage" under the full faith and credit clause and thereby force such marriages on all states, "That is not the way I read the case law." Perhaps Sen. Clinton should read the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas for an understanding of the Court's current view on matters. The comments by Sens. Feinstein and Clinton add up to nothing but hypocritical humbug. The will of the people is clear and so is the way in which we should protect marriage in this country. This fight has just begun.

The FRC has created a nifty page where you can quickly learn how your senators voted on the motion to invoke cloture. It links to a CapWiz page, complete with a sample message you can customize and, with a single click, send to both your senators.

Exploring Tort Reform
Topic: Tort Reform
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

In a recent commentary for the Heritage Foundation website's Press Room section, Paul Rosenzweig notes the outrageous cost of US litigation:

This method of redressing civil wrongs is tremendously inefficient, costing Americans more than $180 billion per year -- roughly 2 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. By contrast, other countries' tort systems operate far less expensively. Great Britain's system claims only 0.6 percent of its GDP annually; Denmark's only 0.4 percent.

Yet legislative efforts to reform the system have stalled in state capitals and Washington, DC. This is partially due to the wealth and raw political pull of trial lawyers. Their campaign contributions -- running to hundreds of millions of dollars every election cycle -- have bought a dedicated opposition to reform among many incumbents.

Rosenzweig offers a couple of interesting proposals for reducing the obscene legal fees harvested by both plaintiff and defense lawyers. Should such proposals be enacted, medical malpractice and class action sharks like John Edwards would have to struggle by on a 5- or $10 million fortune, instead of a $70 million one, but we all have our crosses to bear.

And speaking of medical malpractice lawsuit abuse, SickOfLawsuits.org is offering an online petition for healthcare litigation reform. Their solution, based on capping unreasonable awards, is also worth examining.

More on Thought Crime in Britain and the US
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

A superb piece from Mark Steyn answers questions I posed in my July 9 post "More Thought Crime in Britian":

A couple of years back, I mentioned the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and received a flurry of lively e-mails. It was Valentine's Day 1989, you'll recall, when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his extraterritorial summary judgment on a British subject, and shortly thereafter large numbers of British Muslims were marching through English cities openly calling for Rushdie to be killed.

A reader in Bradford recalled asking a West Yorkshire officer on the street that day why the various "Muslim community leaders" weren't being arrested for incitement to murder. The officer said they'd been told to "play it cool". The calls for blood got more raucous. My correspondent asked his question again. The policeman told him to "F--- off, or I'll arrest you."

Isn't that pretty much how it's likely to go once David Blunkett's new protection for Islam is in place?. . . .

Meanwhile, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the Western world, but Blunkett wants us to pretend that it's a wee delicate bloom which has to be sheltered from anything unpleasant. The other week, the governor of one of those Nigerian states that now lives under sharia called for the burning of all Christian churches within his jurisdiction. Every Friday, on state TV and radio throughout the Arab world and in mosques somewhat closer to home, the A-list imams call for the killing of Jews and infidels. Well, good luck to them. But, if they can dish it out so enthusiastically, couldn't they learn to take it just an eensy-teensy-weensy bit?

Steyn includes a prescient quote from Winston Churchill's The River War. Read it and pass it on, while its still legal to do so:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

And for further reading. . .

While I don't agree with all of the Traditional Values Coalition's positions and rhetoric, they do offer a hate crimes legislation report which is well worth reading. You can download it in PDF here.

For more on pending thought crimes legislation, click "Legislation" under "Entries by Topic" at the top left of this page.

Call Your Senators, and Ahhhnold
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

Here's two important alerts for Marriage Protection Monday:

From the Family Research Council:

Call Your Senators - Ask Them to Protect Marriage!

As the Senate prepares to vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage, it is vital that all pro-family Americans contact their Senators in support of this necessary amendment.

Click on this link for a list of Senators that Family Research Council has deemed to be the highest priority. If your Senator is listed, please contact him or her immediately and tell them to cast a vote in support of traditional marriage during the week of July 12th.

And from the Campaign for California Families:

ACTION: TELL ARNOLD WHICH WAY THE WIND SHOULD BLOW

California's governor is wetting his finger and holding it up in the air. The governor who would not take a position on AB 1967, the homosexual "marriage" bill defeated earlier this year, has now set up a poll to ask "if you support same-sex marriage, press one," and "if you oppose, press two." Please take action and call the 24/7 recording to help Governor Schwarzenegger care more - much more - about God's sacred institution of marriage. Homosexual activists are calling right now and pushing the "support" button. You and your friends should do the opposite - call and press the "oppose" button! Hopefully Arnold will receive so many calls, he'll take his finger out of the air, and instead, raise his hand and solemnly pledge to veto homosexual "marriage" should it ever land on his desk.

Act Now: To register your opposition to "same-sex marriage," call (916) 445-2841, press 5, then 1, then 2.

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

In today's column, one of his best, Charles Krauthammer dares to discuss the elephant in the livingroom:

There is no gradualness and there are no countermeasures to a dozen nuclear warheads detonating simultaneously in American cities. Think of what just two envelopes of anthrax did to paralyze the capital of the world's greatest superpower. A serious, coordinated attack on the United States using WMDs could so shatter the United States as a functioning advanced industrialized society that it would take generations to rebuild.

What is so dismaying is that such an obvious truth needs repeating. The passage of time, the propaganda of the anti-American left, and the setbacks in Iraq have changed nothing of that truth. This is the first time in history the knowledge of how to make society-destroying weapons has been democratized. Today, small radical groups allied with small radical states can do the kind of damage to the world that in the past only a great, strategically located industrialized power like Germany or Japan could do.

It is a new world and exceedingly dangerous. Everything is at stake. We are now deeply engaged in a breastbeating exercise for not having connected the dots before 9/11. And yet here we are three years after 9/11, the dots already connected themselves, and we are under a powerful urge to ignore them completely.

Read it all. Then send it to your elected officials and everyone you know. The first step in preventing nuclear destruction is to stop pretending it can't happen.

UNFPA Funding Vote Today
Topic: Legislation
(What are "political devotions"? Click here.)

I could not get any info on whether the vote referenced in this alert has occured. Just in case it has not, here's the alert, from the Family Research Council's Washington Update:

Key Vote on Abortion in House - Your Call Can Decide the Outcome

[Today], the powerful House Appropriations Committee will consider a spending bill for foreign aid that will include a debate over abortion. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) will introduce an amendment that would give federal money to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization that supports China's one-child policy and indirectly funds coerced abortions. President Bush has firmly opposed any support for UNFPA but the House Appropriations Committee is evenly split between pro-life and pro-abortion Members so the fight over this amendment will be decided by one or two votes either way.

FRC has identified eight key votes on this committee. If you are from one of these states call the Capitol switchboard, 202-224-3121, and ask them for the Member's office and express your opposition to the Lowey amendment to fund UNFPA. The U.S government should not be in the business of funding any abortions, much less forced abortions. Key votes: Ralph Regula (R-OH), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), David Hobson (R-OH), George Nethercutt (R-WA), Duke Cunningham (R-CA), Kay Granger (R-TX), John Sweeney (R-NY), Bud Cramer (D-AL).

Additional Resources Congressional Directory http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=PG03G34&f=WU04G06&t=e

Update: Good news. The amendment was defeated.

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].