The Ten Minute Lobbyist

Essential Links for Ten Minute Lobbying

2005-10-18T09:09:00.000-07:00

Here are some of the links I've found most useful:

Links for contacting your elected officials and media outlets are here.

Posts on timely issues and a list of recommended sites are available at Save Western Civilization.

Townhall.com's today's issues list links to the latest articles from all their member groups.

Focus on the Family's Citizenlink and Family Research Council each send out a daily newsletter covering all issues important to Evangelical social conservatives.

At Congress.org, you can sign up for their MegaVote service, for weekly updates on your senators' and House representative's votes.

More to come . . . .

2005-01-10T13:06:00.000-08:00

A nice homeschooling rant today from Doug Giles: Publik Skule vs. Home School

I was sitting at our neighborhood pool New Year’s morning, enjoying the great South Florida weather while trying to grind out a couple of chapters for my new book, when three high school girls took the chaise lounges next to me and started talking about their New Year’s Eve party with their high school mates.

Seemingly still semi-drunk from the party, the 16- and 17-year-old girls began to recount how much coke, weed, vodka, guys and girls they did the night before. Listening to the F-bomb riddled report of the previous night’s peccadilloes left me thinking, how sad … and … what a waste … and … thank God my wife and I yanked our kids out of the public school system and away from these visionless, dissolute and spoiled morons.

The Kid's Not All Right

2005-01-08T21:51:00.000-08:00

From World Net Daily (Via Michelle Malkin), news of a decision that just begs for a public-opinion-induced reversal:

Kid Rock, a popular vulgar rock-rapper whose lyrics wouldn't begin to pass muster with the Federal Communications Commission, is headlining the youth concert during the inauguration festivities for President Bush -- a politician who was re-elected largely due to the participation of traditional "values voters."

The Detroit-based rapper, who dedicated his first album to songs about oral sex and who was voted the Sluttiest Male Celebrity at the 1999 MTV Video Music Awards, will perform Jan. 18 at the Washington, D.C., Armory in a concert hosted by Bush daughters Jenna and Barbara. Teenage singer JoJo also will appear at the event.

The WND piece includes the Presidential Inauguration Committee's e-mail address.

2005-01-06T19:19:00.000-08:00

Frankly, I have no idea as to whether this information is true. But I love it:

The military has been very busy here lately. Apparently, the Marines teamed up with some Psyop boys. The USMC put together two PLATOONS of snipers, & headed with the speaker boys out to Fallujah. When they got there, nobody in sight.

The speakers would blare, "Why don't you come out & fight. Why do you hide behind your women? Take off your Burkha & come out to meet us. We are ready to fight you." .... Nothing.

Keep speakers blaring. Pretty soon, one guy jumps up & starts coming out. BOOM. Down he goes.

Crank the speakers back up. "That guy wasn't righteous with Allah, or that couldn't have happened. Where are the righteous fighters that Allah will watch out for? Come out & show yourselves." BOOM.

By the end of the night, 42 insurgents had come to the call.

And Another New Holiday Classic

2004-12-26T11:34:00.000-08:00

It's a Wonderful Life in 30 Seconds, Re-enacted by Bunnies

Better Late Than Never

2004-12-24T10:37:00.000-08:00

From the Jerusalem Post:

US may strike at Ba'athists in Syria

The US is contemplating incursions into Syrian territory in an attempt to kill or capture Iraqi Ba'athists who, it believes, are directing at least part of the attacks against US targets in Iraq, a senior administration official told The Jerusalem Post.

The official said that fresh sanctions are likely to be implemented, but added that the US needs to be more "aggressive" after Tuesday's deadly attack on a US base in Mosul. The comment suggested that the US believes the attack on the mess tent, in which 22 people were killed, may have been coordinated from inside Syrian territory.

"I think the sanctions are one thing. But I think the other thing [the Syrians] have got to start worrying about is whether we would take cross-border military action in hot pursuit or something like that. In other words, nothing like full-scale military hostilities. But when you're being attacked from safe havens across the border – we've been through this a lot of times before – we're just not going to sit there.

"You get a tragedy [like the attack in Mosul] and it reminds people that it is still a very serious problem. If I were Syria, I'd be worried," the senior administration official said.

Like it or not, it's a world war, folks.

Criticize Islam, Go to Jail

2004-12-16T10:43:00.000-08:00

Abraham at World Magazine Blog makes a fine point about the state of free speech in Britain:

Nick Griffin, leader of the fringe right-wing British Nationalist Party, was arrested yesterday for badmouthing Islam during a meeting. A BBC undercover reporter secretly filmed him making the comments, which aired July in a documentary: "This wicked, vicious faith has expanded through a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago until it is now sweeping country after country." Police arrested him on suspicion of incitement to racial hatred, but released him on bail. It's probably not wise to expend too much sympathy on the BNP, whose main aim is to preserve Britain for "indigenous" (that is, white) Britons. Griffin has also questioned the Holocaust in the past. Still, how long before police bundle off ordinary Christian leaders or others who disagree with aspects of Islam?

Update: The answer to that question (in Australia) is, Not long:

Christian pair guilty of racial hatred
By Kate Jones
December 18, 2004

AN evangelical Christian group incited hatred and severe ridicule of Muslims when it called them demons, liars and terrorists, a tribunal ruled yesterday.

In the landmark ruling, Catch the Fire Ministries pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot were found guilty of religious vilification, making them the first under Victoria's new race and religion hate laws.

Pastor Scot told a congregation in a 2002 seminar that Muslims were training to take over Australia and encouraged domestic violence, and that Islam was an inherently violent religion.

Shortly after, the Islamic Council of Victoria filed legal action against Catch the Fire Ministries and the two pastors.

Yesterday in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Judge Michael Higgins found that throughout the seminar Pastor Scot had made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct.

"It was done, not in the context of a serious discussion of Muslims' religious beliefs," the judge said.

"It was presented in a way which is essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their god, Allah, the prophet Mohammed and in general Muslim religious beliefs and practices."

An article published on the Catch the Fire Ministries website and a newsletter distributed by the group were also found to breach the religious vilification legislation.

Islamic Council president Yasser Soliman said the ruling was an important victory for the Muslim community.

"We are not their enemies, we are fellow Australians," Mr Soliman said.

"We don't want to be positioned as an enemy or painted as one.

"Vilification hurts - it's meant to hurt. It's a tool that is sometimes used by extremists."

Pastors Nalliah and Scot described the tribunal's decision as a blow to freedom of speech and said they were considering an appeal.

"Freedom of speech is one of our fundamental values in Australia and this case is not over," Pastor Scot said.

"We cannot let freedom of speech be taken away from us; religion cannot be legislated.

"Gagging people's mouths is the worst thing you can ever do."

Pastor Scot said the seminar, which was organised after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, was held to increase understanding of Muslim culture.

Pastor Nalliah said: "There was no hate speech at all.

"It was teaching and understanding of what we knew of what the holy book of Islamic faith says.

"And I believe we, in a free and democratic society, should have the freedom to speak up."

Christmas Gifts for Troops

2004-12-16T10:35:00.000-08:00

From the Freedom Alliance:

'Tis the Holiday Season and Wounded Service Members Need Your Help

by Oliver North

November 30, 1999
Freedom Alliance Donation Campaign Needs Your Help

During the holiday season we have reason to reflect on the bravery of our soldiers and their families. Two years ago, Freedom Alliance, which honors and encourages military service, launched an injured service members campaign and asked Americans to remember our Vets – and particularly the active duty injured service members – by sending donations (full list below, please send money or listed items only) to the Freedom Alliance headquarters in Dulles, Virginia. At Christmastime, our service members need the donations and prayers of Americans more than ever.

“We have had the opportunity to visit wounded heroes at both Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and while these service members are receiving fantastic treatment, they still need our help,” said Tom Kilgannon, Freedom Alliance President. “While America has pledged to ‘Never Forget’ what our heroic service members, firefighters and police did on 9/11, many are unaware of the injuries sustained in Afghanistan and Iraq since then – and now. Service members across the country at the military hospitals can really use donations.”

Kilgannon continued, “The Freedom Alliance Support the Troops Campaign has been going strong and Americans have truly rallied to deliver supplies to these brave souls and their families. But the needs of these service members have changed and we are asking people to send monetary donations to the Freedom Alliance headquarters in Virginia (full address and phone number listed at conclusion of release) so that we can purchase the following items listed below:

• Airfare – For family members who cannot afford to fly to see their injured sons and daughters.
• Hotel Accommodations – For family members who cannot afford accommodations otherwise.
• Portable/Individual Digital Video Disk (DVD) Players and Compact Disk (CD) Players – Many service members are hospitalized for several months and these entertainment items will help them pass the time.
• DVDs – Movies for the service members to watch while hospitalized – action, comedy and suspense-thrillers are most appropriate.
• CDs – Music tracks of classic rock, country, pop, and other types of music are most helpful.
• Phone Cards
• Cards and Notes – Many service members requested cards and notes – especially from children. They are hundreds of miles from family and friends, and holiday cards and notes, especially from school-aged children would be appreciated.

Please send donations to:
Freedom Alliance - Support the Troops
22570 Markey Court, Suite 240
Dulles, Virginia 20166
800-475-6620

Donations will go into the Freedom Alliance Support the Troops Fund to buy the listed items or assist in other situations, which may arise. Thank you for your support. Please send money or the above listed items only.

More opportunities to give here.

Prepare to Be Outraged

2004-12-14T11:37:00.000-08:00

They love him in Dearborn, and in North Texas.

Michelle's Dream Pick

2004-12-13T13:46:00.000-08:00

Michelle Malkin offers her choice to head the Department of Homeland Security: Peter Nunez, former United States Attorney, Southern District of California (1982-1988), former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement (1990-1993). She also offers this excerpt from his congressional testimony in February 2004 on preventing the entry of terrorists into the United States:

This country must remember that it is based upon the concept of the rule of law. We are a nation of laws - we must abide by the laws we have adopted to deal with the problems of immigration, drugs, and terrorism. It is not enough to pass laws in Congress or in the state legislatures and then ignore them because we are afraid of offending special interests or because of notions of political correctness. And there is no way a country can fight a war against terrorism when it ignores its borders, refuses to enforce its laws away from the borders, and provides sanctuary or informal immunity to those who have broken our laws by coming here illegally or staying beyond their welcome.

This guy is saying all the right things, so he of course has no chance. But we can lobby the White House here, and hope for a Christmas miracle.

Look Who's Got Clarity

2004-12-08T09:42:00.000-08:00

"To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. A law which attempts to say you can criticise and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed."

Now, who do you suppose is responsible for this eloquent and insightful quote? George Will? William F. Buckley?

Actually, it's Mr. Bean.

And a little comedian shall lead them. . .

(Via: Little Green Footballs)

Intelligent Immigration Enforcement

2004-12-05T09:27:00.000-08:00

In today's Washington Times, Congressman Elton Gallegly argues for an intelligence reform bill which includes immigration enforcement provisions:

As the September 11 commission realized, searching for a small group of terrorists among the millions of other illegal immigrants in our country is akin to searching for a needle in a haystack. The smaller we make the haystack, the easier it will be to find the needle — or a dirty bomb al Qaeda may try to sneak across our border.

The intelligence reform bill has numerous valuable provisions, including many I wrote dealing with preventing terrorist travel. However, passage of the "compromise" would still leave gaping and unacceptable holes in our security net.

Pulling the bill from consideration should serve as a wake-up call to those who wish to weaken our immigration laws while we are under the threat of terrorist attack. The overwhelming majority of House Republicans sent a clear message: The GOP is still the party of law and order. Failure to crack down on lawlessness has never made us safer.

That is the message we will continue sending this week.

Michelle Malkin has more on this issue, and action you can take.

Eliminate The Death Tax

2004-11-30T11:32:00.000-08:00

A FreedomWorks alert:

Eliminate the Death Tax for Good

Tell your senators to repeal the death tax once and for all.

The House voted to make the repeal of the death tax permanent by a margin of 264-163. The bill is going on to the Senate, but is threatened by a minority filibuster. Permanently getting rid of the death tax would not only allow family businesses and farms to be passed down; it would stop government destruction of small companies. Let your Senators know that the death tax is unjust, unwise, and needs to be abolished once and for all.

From their sample message:

No section of the tax code is more unfair and dangerous to our entrepreneurial economy than the Death Tax. With rates as high as 55 percent, the Death Tax punishes people who build a successful business and try to leave that legacy to their family. Moreover, the Death Tax’s modest contributions to the federal Treasury are dwarfed by its staggering impact on the U.S. economy.

S & M For Kids

2004-11-27T13:29:00.000-08:00

Last night, while channel surfing (always a mistake), I had the misfortune of coming upon a rerun of Fear Factor on FX. The segment featured an attractive woman, strapped in a torture chamber, screaming in terror while a hooded figure methodically pierced her flesh with about a dozen syringe needles.

Welcome to basic cable.

According to the Parents Television Council website, Fear Factor is the third-most-watched show among children 14 and under. My first question is "Where are the parents?" My second is "Why do I have to pay for this sickening trash?"

But the news is not all bad. The PTC is fighting back, and has setup a Capwiz alert you can use to fight for a la carte cable:

URGENT ACTION ALERT

FCC's Report Helps Cable Companies But Ignores Public Outrage Over Indecency

Contact Congress and Support "A La Carte" Cable Option

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) delivered a report to congress slamming the per-channel sale of cable programming, or "a la carte" cable subscriptions. An "a la carte" system would give parents the ability to choose which channels they want, and to pay only for those channels, rather than forcing parents to continue to subsidize extremely graphic sexual, profane and violent cable programming on channels they never watch.

But the Commission's report didn't even address indecency on cable - even though the gratuitous, graphic and sordid material so prevalent on cable is the primary reason so many parents are demanding "a la carte."

Earlier this week, the PTC released a Special Report that demonstrates exactly why parents need the "a la carte" option: Cable television is rife with the most licentious, decadent and perverse content imaginable. The PTC's report shows that obscene language, horrific violence and graphic sexual content are readily available on advertiser-supported basic cable during all hours of the day,"

We must warn you, the examples provided in the PTC's report are extremely graphic. Most adults will be shocked and disgusted by these content examples. Do not let any children see this report. But you need to read it to see what you -- and millions of other parents -- are forced to pay for in order to access the wholesome, family-friendly programming your family wants to see. You can also view a number of video clips from the actual cable broadcasts referenced in the report. But again - these examples are absolutely shocking. We cannot emphasize enough how graphic these video clips are.

To say that cable television is in the sewer would be an insult to sewage. Parents want and need to have the power to choose their cable networks. The cable industry won't do it, and the FCC won't do it, so we're taking our fight to our elected officials. Contact your representatives in Congress today to demand the FCC create a new report that addresses the issue of indecent content found on cable television programming, and ask your representative to support "a la carte" cable subscriptions.

A copy of your letter will be sent to all 5 FCC Commissioners and to your local media as well.

A New Holiday Classic

2004-11-27T11:35:00.000-08:00

It's A Dan-Derful Life

Nuclear Option 2

2004-11-22T20:38:00.000-08:00

The Jerusalem Post's Caroline B. Glick explains why France, Germany and Britain's recent, risible agreement with Iran has removed diplomacy from the strategic equation:

In the unlikely event that the issue is ever turned over to the Security Council, France will veto sanctions even if Russia and China could be bought off to abstain. As the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal has shown, even if sanctions were to be levied, there is no credible way to enforce them.

So where does this leave the Jews who, in the event that Iran goes nuclear, will face the threat of annihilation? Crunch time has arrived. It is time for Israel's leaders to go to Washington and ask the Americans point blank if they plan to defend Europe as Europe defends Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state. It must be made very clear to the White House that the hour of diplomacy faded away with the European Trio's latest ridiculous agreement with the mullahs. There is no UN option. Europe has cast its lot with the enemy of civilization itself.

The prevailing wisdom in Washington these days seems to be that the US is waiting for an Israeli attack on Iran. There is some logic to such a policy. No doubt, the Arabs and the Iranians will all blame America anyway, but they are not America's chief concern here. Britain and Germany are.

What the US needs is plausible deniability regarding an Israeli strike vis- -vis Britain and Germany, in order to get itself out of the trap that Paris has set for it. An Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program will leave Germany in an uncomfortable public position. Berlin cannot condemn the Jews for doing what we can to prevent another Holocaust without losing whatever crumbs of moral credibility it has built up over the past 50 years.

As for Britain, if Israel were to conduct the attack on its own, the British would be hard-pressed to abandon the Americans; thus, the danger that British involvement with the Paris-based multipolarists on Iran will breach the Anglo-American alliance could be somewhat mitigated.

On the other hand, if the Bush administration does not accept Israeli reasoning, the fact will still remain: Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran.

Nuclear Option 1

2004-11-22T20:28:00.000-08:00

Human Events has a nice explanation of how democracy may soon return to the senate:

You've heard of the "nuclear option." But how about the "constitutional option?"

The phrase relates to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's reported decision to force through a long-overdue change in Senate rules governing the confirmation of judicial nominees. Frustrated by the Democrats' unprecedented use of procedural tactics to torpedo President Bush's nominees for the federal appeals courts, Frist and his Senate colleagues have allegedly decided to deploy what conservative jurists describe as the "constitutional option" during the next confrontation over a judicial nomination.

The "constitutional option" refers to a Senate rules change that would guarantee something most legal experts always took for granted--that even the most controversial nominee will, at the end of the day, receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. During Bush's first term, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle abandoned more than two centuries of Senate tradition and established the Daschle Precedent of denying nominees a floor vote through the use of the filibuster, a potent procedural tool that effectively raises the number of votes required for confirmation from 51 to 60. Thus, Bush's nomination of an esteemed jurist such as Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Court of Appeals failed even though Estrada consistently won the support of 53 senators during Republican efforts to break the Daschle filibuster.

How would the "constitutional option" unfold? The next time Senate Democrats balk over a principled Bush nominee, Frist would attempt to resolve the impasse. Failing that, he would ask the presiding officer of the Senate to rule on the appropriateness of applying the 60-vote supermajority requirement to judicial nominees. The presiding officer is a senator who oversees Senate floor debate and is empowered to interpret Senate rules and establish binding Senate precedents. Given the gravity of this ruling, expect to see the Senate president pro tem, Alaska Republican Ted Stevens, occupy the chair when Frist issues his challenge to the 60-vote requirement.

Next, the presiding officer would rule that using the filibuster in this narrow set of circumstances is inappropriate, perhaps noting (but only in passing) the constitutional concerns that arise when a Senate minority effectively eviscerates the "advice and consent" requirement with respect to court nominees. The ruling would lower the confirmation threshold from 60 to 51 votes. On cue, a senior Democrat, either the new minority leader, Nevada's Harry Reid, or perhaps Senate procedural expert Robert Byrd of West Virginia, would appeal the ruling of the chair. The ensuing floor vote to implement the presiding officer's ruling, which would unfold largely along party lines, requires only a simple majority.

It is worth noting that a number of seasoned conservatives with long Washington memories object to this strategy. They recall the days when liberals controlled both the White House and Capitol Hill. Then, the only thing standing between the American people and a surge of big-government legislation was a determined minority of conservative senators willing to use the filibuster on behalf of core conservative principles. These conservatives worry that one day Blue America liberals will control the levers of power and will use this precedent against conservatives. But those who support the change anticipate that it would be extraordinarily narrow in scope, applying only to nominations to the federal bench and specifically excluding other presidential nominations and bills on the legislative calendar.

Khomeini in Dearborn

2004-11-17T21:20:00.000-08:00

At FrontPage Magazine, Robert Spencer reminisces about the Dearborn Moslems' hero:

I wonder if anyone at the Dearborn protest realized that the appearance of these signs in Dearborn, Michigan, exalting this man as a hero, indicated that Khomeini's vision for society is alive in America today -- and that it is dangerously naive to assume that all Muslims immediately and unquestioningly accept American pluralism and the idea of a state not governed by religious law. The Netherlands is just finding out, thanks to the cold-blooded murder and attempted decapitation of the "blasphemer" Theo van Gogh by a Muslim who appears to have been part of a larger jihadist cell, that not all the Muslims in Holland are the committed pluralists and secularists that they have been assumed to be by credulous European authorities.

With Khomeini a hero in Dearborn, Americans may be finding that out for themselves before long. Just where American Muslims stand on Khomeini's doctrines -- and how many stand with Khomeini -- are still forbidden questions for the major media. But if the old man could have spoken from his sign in Dearborn, he might have said, "Ignore me at your own risk."

Phone Calls and Food for Troops

2004-11-15T20:03:00.000-08:00

Two worthy programs from the US Department of Defense:

Military Phone Card Donation Program Goes Public

The Department of Defense announced today that any American can now help troops in contingency operations call home. The Defense Department has authorized the Armed Services Exchanges to sell prepaid calling cards to any individual or organization that wishes to purchase cards for troops who are deployed. The “Help Our Troops Call Home” program is designed to help servicemembers call home from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

For those wishing to donate a prepaid calling card to a military member may log on to any of the three Armed Services Exchange web sites: the Army and Air Force Exchange Service http://www.aafes.com/, the Navy Exchange Service Command http://www.navy-nex.com/, and the Marine Corps Exchange http://www.usmc-mccs.org/. Click the “Help Our Troops Call Home” link. From there, a prepaid calling card may be purchased for an individual at his or her deployed address or to “any service member” deployed or hospitalized. The Armed Services Exchanges will distribute cards donated to “any service member” through the American Red Cross, Air Force Aid Society and the Fisher House Foundation.

The Armed Services Exchanges operate telephone call centers in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and other countries and aboard ships -- anywhere servicemembers are deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. All of these locations stay busy around the clock to keep up communication between deployed troops and their loved ones. The cards available through the “Help Our Troops Call Home” program offer the best value for calls made from the call centers, never expire, and there are no added charges or connection fees.

Individuals and organizations also can show their support to deployed troops and their families with gift certificates. The “Gift of Groceries” program allows anyone to purchase commissary gift certificates at http://www.commissaries.com or by calling toll free 1 (877) 770-GIFT. The Armed Services Exchanges offer the “Gift From the Homefront” gift certificate for merchandise at these exchange web sites: http://www.aafes.com and http://www.navy-nex.com or by calling toll free 1 (877) 770-GIFT. Gift certificates may be purchased to be mailed to servicemembers and family members or will be distributed to “any servicemember.” Only authorized commissary and exchange patrons may redeem the gift certificates at military commissaries and exchanges, including those stores supporting deployed personnel around the globe.

Fifth Columnists March in Michigan

2004-11-15T09:06:00.000-08:00

Little Green Footballs has a revealing entry on an anti-Israel, anti-America march marking the end of Ramadan in Dearborn. Be sure to click through on the Getty Images link, to view photos of the marchers carrying portraits of Khomeini. Charming.

God Judge His Soul

2004-11-11T14:09:00.000-08:00

The many sickening, sycophantic reactions to Arafat's death bring to mind the words of philosopher Eric Hoffer:

"When cowardice is made respectable, its followers are without number both from among the weak and the strong; it easily becomes a fashion."

Eric Hoffer (1902-83), U.S. philosopher. The Passionate State of Mind, aph. 203 (1955).

In today's Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby offers a proper "tribute":

Arafat The Monster

YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.

In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.

Arafat always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and his last two weeks were no exception.

Derek Brown wrote in The Guardian that Arafat's "undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader" was exceeded only "by his extraordinary courage" as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims -- or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms.

Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked, "So what did Arafat do right?" The answer: He drew worldwide attention to the Palestinian cause, "for the most part by successful acts of terror." In other words, butchering innocent human beings was "right," since it served an ulterior political motive. No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat's "successful" terrorism.

Some journalists couldn't wait for Arafat's actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC's Barbara Plett, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound," Plett reported from Ramallah, "I started to cry." Normal people don't weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat -- whom she praised as "a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance" -- was heartfelt:

"I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: `Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.' And so was I." Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat's victims. (That is, when they mention them -- which Plett's teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)

And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch?

How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.

Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command.

The Chimera Vanishes

2004-11-07T10:27:00.000-08:00

In today's Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens offers a brief Arafat retrospective and reminds us of the hope inherent in the world's oldest terrorist's demise:

Once in power in Ramallah, the abuses became much worse. Critics of his government were routinely imprisoned and often tortured. In 1999, Muawiya Al-Masri, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, gave an interview to a Jordanian newspaper denouncing Arafat's corruption. He was later attacked by a gang of masked men and shot three times. (He survived.)

Yet for all this, Arafat continued to ride the wave of international goodwill. The Europeans gave him the Nobel Peace Prize. The Clinton administration saw him as the one man who could "deliver" the Palestinians to make peace with Israel. The peace camp in Israel, championed by the late Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, more or less agreed; to them, Arafat was the thug who'd keep the Palestinian street quiet. Arafat strung them along, more or less, until his bluff was called by the Israeli peace offer at Camp David in July 2000.

After that, there was just no point in keeping up appearances, and so came the intifada. It was a premeditated act. As Arafat had already told an Arab audience in Stockholm in 1996, "We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem."

It goes without saying that Arafat failed in that endeavor. The Israelis belatedly realized that the maximum they could concede was less than the minimum Arafat would accept, and refused to deal with him. For its part, the second Bush administration cut off the international life support. In this sense, Arafat's illness--so far undisclosed by his doctors--can easily be diagnosed: He died of political starvation.

What remains? Very little, I suspect. None of his deputies can possibly fill his shoes, which are those of a personality cult, not a political or national leader. There is nothing to unite Palestinians anymore, either; their loyalties to the cause will surely dissipate in his absence. Arafat was remarkable in that he sustained the illusion he created till the very end. But once the magician walks off the stage, the chimera vanishes.

Not Specter

2004-11-05T13:26:00.000-08:00

An alert from the Family Research Council:

In what has to be the height of arrogance and ingratitude, Senator Arlen Specter, the man set to become the head of the Judiciary Committee, warned President Bush against nominating pro-life judges. This is after President Bush campaigned for Sen. Specter over pro-life Pat Toomey and is responsible for Specter's re-election to the Senate. While the senator did vote for the confirmation of Clarence Thomas, he has spent much of his public life fighting against the confirmation of pro-life judges--including leading the fight against Ronald Reagan's nominee to the Supreme Court, Robert Bork. He has a history of pandering to the aggressive abortion lobby, and a Specter chairmanship would be disastrous. As chairman, he would control the confirmation process of federal judges, including nominees to the Supreme Court. He would also determine the makeup of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff, which would go a long way toward determining the committee's political and judicial philosophy.

What is especially troubling about the Sen. Specter's comments is that they come on the heels of an election that overwhelmingly affirmed pro-life candidates and a pro-family philosophy. With the addition of five new pro-life senators, the Senate itself became significantly more pro-life on Tuesday. Now is not the time to shrink from the duty to protect the dignity of life and family. President Bush has stated repeatedly throughout the months leading up to the election his commitment to a culture of life and his legacy will likely be defined in large part by who he appoints to courts in the next four years.

Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist has affirmed his agreement with the President time and again regarding his understanding of the courts, the role of the Senate in the confirmation process, and the dignity of life. Senator Frist and the overwhelming majority of pro-life Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee need to stand up for the President and the American people and oppose the Specter litmus test. Our pro-life President and his colleagues in the Senate MUST NOT ALLOW Sen. Specter to determine the makeup of our courts! Sen. Specter should not become the next Judiciary Committee chairman.

Call Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Republican Committee Members through the Capitol Switchboard, 202-224-3121:

Orrin Hatch Chuck Grassley Jon Kyl Mike Dewine Jeff Sessions Lindsey Graham Larry Craig

Additional Resources
Senate Judiciary Committee
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=LK04K07&f=WU04K05&t=e

The Best Week Ever

2004-11-05T13:24:00.000-08:00

President Bush is on his throne and Arafat is at hell's door. Does it get any more perfect than this?

Insurgents

2004-11-02T08:16:00.000-08:00

Use of lawyers and judges to impose their will upon the majority has been a tactic of the Left for decades, and now in a chilling press release, RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke lays out in detail how the Democrats plan to stage what amounts to an election day coup d'etat:

After filing more than 40 lawsuits in 18 battleground states in recent weeks, and in keeping with their Election Day playbook, Democrats are prepared to execute an Election Day litigation strategy. As soon as the polls open in the morning, their touted 10,000-plus lawyers will systematically file litigation to change the rules in battleground states across the nation and create a sense of chaos.

Before the day is out, Democrats will begin to argue that every provisional ballot should be counted, regardless of the circumstances or legality in which it was cast, thus allowing them to convert third party registration fraud into voter fraud on behalf of John Kerry.

The Democrats’ Election Day litigation strategy has three primary objectives:

Securing special rules and extensions for the benefit of Democrats in predominately Democrat precincts.

Eliminating traditional safeguards against voter fraud, including I.D. requirements and voting in precinct.

Creating a sense of chaos, with the hope of casting a shadow of doubt over Election Day.

Read it all. And remember, if Kerry wins, these people will be running things and making lifetime judicial appointments.

Kerry Must Be Defeated, Part II

2004-11-01T08:17:00.000-08:00

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch agrees with Paul Johnson:

. . . will that keep Osama from proclaiming that a Kerry victory is a victory for the global jihad and the assumption of dhimmi status by the USA? Don't bet on it.

Why does that matter? Some will say, of course, that there won't be any victory for the global jihad, no matter which candidate wins: both have pledged to fight terrorists. True, but nonetheless it matters a great deal.

The perception that America has followed Spain into dhimmitude could become the cause of a worldwide explosion (so to speak) of jihadist activity from mujahedin who have renewed evidence to believe that they are facing a paper tiger - just as Osama himself did after the Black Hawk incident in Somalia.

Kerry Must Be Defeated

2004-10-31T18:09:00.000-08:00

British historian Paul Johnson masterfully articulates the stakes in this, the most important election in American history:

All the elements of anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory. The mullahs and the imams, the gunmen and their arms suppliers and paymasters, all those who stand to profit—politically, financially, and emotionally—from the total breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of law, want to see Bush replaced. His defeat on November 2 will be greeted, in Arab capitals, by shouts of triumph from fundamentalist mobs of exactly the kind that greeted the news that the Twin Towers had collapsed and their occupants been exterminated.

I cannot recall any election when the enemies of America all over the world have been so unanimous in hoping for the victory of one candidate. That is the overwhelming reason that John Kerry must be defeated, heavily and comprehensively.

Back in Business

2004-10-31T09:39:00.000-08:00

Managed to get things up and running again, for now at least. Too swamped with work to post big today, but here's a couple of pithy quotes from Dawn Eden:

"Planned Parenthood . . . treats abstinence as an unwelcome wallflower at the orgy."

And from Michelle Malkin:

"Bush-haters + Moore-haters + European nosybodies + Democrat paranoiacs + Republican crusaders + FBI agents + 24/7 media coverage + computer glitches + ballot confusion + fear of possible election-day terrorist attacks

If this isn't a recipe for trouble, I don't know what is."

But go out and vote for President Bush anyway. After all, we're not voting in Afghanistan. Now there's voter intimidation.

Technical Difficulties - Testing, Testing

2004-10-30T06:29:00.000-07:00

For some reason, for the past two days I've been unable to successfully log into Blogger.com and post. I'm sending this post by e-mail, to see if it will
work. Another instance of computers making our lives easier. Not.

Violence

2004-10-25T07:47:00.000-07:00

Today Daniel Pipes blogs the story of a recent column in Britain's ultra-left Guardian, calling for the assassination of President Bush. Amid the predictable public outcry, the Guardian pulled the column and put the following apology in its place:

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

Violence of any kind? I'm sure that would include the horrific violence the US perpetrated in protecting Britan and liberating Europe from Nazi Germany. Yes, those sophisticated Euros deplore violence of any kind. And their continent will again shake for it.

A Tyranny of the Stupid

2004-10-23T13:33:00.000-07:00

How did such a big chunk of the electorate get duped into supporting pampered cypher John Kerry? Mona Charen knows:

Ilya Somin, a professor at the George Mason School of Law, published a study in the Cato Institute's magazine about voter ignorance that offers a peek into the empty spaces between many voters' ears.

Seventy percent of voters apparently were completely unaware of the fact that the federal government adopted a huge prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare during the term of President Bush. Fully 65 percent did not know that the government had passed a ban on partial birth abortions. Some 58 percent acknowledged that they knew little or nothing about the Patriot Act (a figure Somin argues persuasively is probably low-ball). Sixty-one percent thought, incorrectly, that there had been a net job loss in 2004. Only 32 percent were aware that Social Security is one of the two largest expenditure areas in the federal government. Only 25 percent could correctly state that the Bush administration does not believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Only 22 percent knew that the current unemployment rate is lower than the average for the past 30 years.

Political observers make much of swings in voter sentiment -- like the elevation of Republicans to majority status in the House of Representatives in 1994. Yet Somin reports that in the election of 2002, only 32 percent of voters knew that the Republican Party controlled the House. Hmmm.

Frankly, if Americans want to remain ignorant about the people who have the power to tax their money, condemn their property, declare war, inflate the currency to worthlessness, permit terrorists to prey on innocents and much, much more, that is their choice. But why oh why must the chattering classes ceaselessly urge them to inflict this ignorance upon the rest of us?

Suicide by Stupidity: The White House and Open Borders

2004-10-22T08:29:00.000-07:00

Michelle Malkin today highlights why, even with (please, God) a Bush win on Nov. 2, the country is still in deep, deep trouble:

In an even more shameful betrayal, the White House is now reportedly pressuring stalwart House Republicans into scrapping important immigration enforcement provisions of the House Intelligence Bill that speed up the deportation process and bar illegal aliens from obtaining valuable driver's licenses or using easy-to-fake foreign consular ID cards. Why? Because they are politically unpopular with ethnic constituencies.

This race is not just about who is better able to hunt down and destroy our enemies abroad. It's about who is more willing to hunt them down right here, jail them, kick them out and keep them out of our home. President Bush has shown he can stand up to the international Axis of Weasels. He must show the same resolve against La Raza, the immigration lawyers and Teddy Kennedy.

Her post includes a call to action with the relevant contact information. Just for good measure, here's the White House contact page.

An "Unbiased" Press Shills for Kerry

2004-10-20T09:04:00.000-07:00

Today's alert from Ed Gillespie further underscores that President Bush is not only running against the the Democrats, but also the entertainment industry and the press:

CNN's HOWARD KURTZ: "It is a tight race. Do you believe that most reporters want John Kerry to win?"

NEWSWEEK'S EVAN THOMAS: "Yeah, absolutely."

KURTZ: "Do you think they're deliberately tilting their coverage to help John Kerry and John Edwards?"

THOMAS: "Not really."

KURTZ:"Subconsciously tilting their coverage?"

THOMAS:"Maybe."

KURTZ:"Maybe."

THOMAS:"Maybe."

KURTZ:"Including at Newsweek?"

THOMAS:"Yeah."

KURTZ:"You've said on the program 'Inside Washington' that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as young and optimistic, that's worth maybe 15 points. That would suggest."

THOMAS:"Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. I do think that the mainstream press, I'm not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don't thin k it's worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say."

KURTZ:"Is it worth five?"

THOMAS:"Maybe, maybe."

(CNN's Reliable Sources, October 17, 2004)

According to one of the most established members of the "mainstream media," the fact that "most reporters want John Kerry to win" could be worth 5 to 15 percentage points- or 5 to 20 million votes- on Election Day.

Much of the Kerry campaign's political calculation relies on the media reporting as fact baseless charges of voter intimidation, "privatizing social security" and "reinstating the draft," blaming President Bush for the flu vaccine shortage when Kerry opposed liability reform for vaccine manufacturers, and the demonstrably false charge that the President has banned stem cell research.

We must remain vigilant and hold the press accountable if and when the fact "most reporters want John Kerry to win" evidences itself in articles and on-air stories between now and November 2.

Call and complain, write letters to the editor, call talk radio, forward our factual e-mails to your friends and post facts on blogs. This will help make sure voters have accurate information on which to base their decision on Election Day.

With your help in setting the record straight over the next two weeks, President Bush will be re-elected.

Ed Gillespie
Chairman,
Republican National Committee

Two Voters in Two Weeks

2004-10-19T08:03:00.000-07:00

GeorgeWBush.com has a new campaign:

As the campaign enters its final days, President Bush has seized the momentum and is well-positioned to win re-election in a close race.

Supporters should use the momentum to recruit two new George W. Bush supporters between now and Election Day. In the next two weeks, let's each try to get two new people to vote for the President who we haven't touched yet -- two in two!

And here are their recommendations for action over the next two weeks:

1. Vote Early. You may be able to cast your vote now via an absentee ballot. State laws allow absentee ballots to be cast if you cannot vote on Election Day. Please refer to www.GeorgeWBush.com/VoteEarly to determine whether you are eligible to cast an absentee ballot in your state. If you will not be able to vote on Election Day, and meet the criteria, I encourage you to take this chance and vote absentee. In addition, in the next two weeks, get two new people to vote for the President who we haven't touched yet.

2. Volunteer for the President. Four years ago the President lost a commanding lead on the weekend before the election because the liberals orchestrated a massive get-out-the-vote operation; it nearly cost him the election. Volunteer now for the Bush Team's vital phone banking and door-to-door efforts. Click on www.GeorgeWBush.com/72hour.

3. Write a Letter to the Editor of your local newspapers. Call Talk Radio.

To these I would add: Make sure that everyone you know whom you think is going to vote for President Bush actually is going to do so. Just after the 1992 election, I was chagrined to learn two people whom I was sure had voted for Bush 41 actually voted for Ross "they're coming to take me a way ho-ho" Perot. It pays to double check.

Putin Identifies Elephant in Livingroom

2004-10-18T08:10:00.000-07:00

Oh how the Dems would scream if a Republican said this:

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday that terrorists are aiming to derail President Bush's chances at re-election through their attacks in Iraq...

"I consider the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at coalition forces but more personally against President Bush," Putin said at a news conference after a regional summit in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe.

"International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term," he said. "If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power."

Fit to Command

2004-10-15T13:25:00.000-07:00

Those who are risking their lives to fight the war on Islamic terror, and their families, have a clear opinion as to whom they trust to be commander in chief:

Poll: GIs, Families Trust Bush Over Kerry

WASHINGTON - When asked who they would trust as commander in chief, people in military service and their families chose President Bush (news - web sites) over Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), a decorated Vietnam veteran, by almost a 3-to-1 margin.

Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard, was more trusted by 69 percent while 24 percent said they trusted Kerry more, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey released Friday.

Among all Americans, Bush has a more narrow advantage on trust to be commander in chief, 50-41.

The military sample was far more likely to be Republican than Democratic, which could help explain the more favorable view of the president. Four in 10, 43 percent, of the military sample said they were Republicans, while 19 percent said Democrats and 27 percent independents.

Those in the military and their families have a more favorable view of Bush than Americans generally, and they take a more optimistic view about Iraq (news - web sites), the economy and the nation's direction.

A majority in the military sample, 64 percent, said the country is on the right track. Among Americans generally, 55 percent said the country is headed in the wrong direction.

The National Annenberg Election Survey found that seven in 10, 69 percent, had a favorable view of Bush. Only three in 10, 29 percent, had a favorable view of Kerry.

Snake-Oil Salesmen

2004-10-15T07:59:00.000-07:00

Charles Krauthammer, who is a medical doctor, and paralyzed, has a powerful response to Kerry-Edwards' rise-up-and-walk pandering:

I'm not making this up. I couldn't. This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: ``If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.''

In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately raising for personal gain false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable.

Where does one begin to deconstruct this outrage?

First, the inability of the human spinal cord to regenerate is one of the great mysteries of biology. The answer is not remotely around the corner. It could take a generation to unravel. To imply, as Edwards did, that it is imminent if only you elect the right politicians is scandalous.

Second, if the cure for spinal cord injury comes, we have no idea where it will come from. There are many lines of inquiry. Stem cell research is just one of many possibilities, and a very speculative one at that. For 30 years I have heard promises of miracle cures for paralysis (including my own, suffered as a medical student). The last fad, fetal tissue transplants, was thought to be a sure thing. Nothing came of it.

As a doctor by training, I've known better than to believe the hype -- and have tried in my own counseling of the newly spinal-cord injured to place the possibility of cure in abeyance. I advise instead to concentrate on making a life (and a very good life it can be) with the hand one is dealt. The greatest enemy of this advice has been the snake-oil salesmen promising a miracle around the corner. I never expected a candidate for vice president to be one of them.

Third, the implication that Christopher Reeve was prevented from getting out of his wheelchair by the Bush stem cell policies is a travesty.

Read on for Charles' take on the mythical "ban" on stem cell research.

Better Off Heathen

2004-10-14T06:46:00.000-07:00

In his most recent column, John Leo exposes how the once benign mainline churches are now doing Satan's work:

Apparently they cast a stern moral glance around the world, look for possible abuses in China, North Korea, and Iran, and seeing nothing disturbing there, decide to focus once again on Israel. The conservative Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) released a measured and devastating report on the human-rights efforts of mainline churches and groups--the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), plus the reliably leftist National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches. The report, covering the years 2000 to 2003, found that of 197 human-rights criticisms by mainline churches and groups, 37 percent were aimed at Israel and 32 percent at the United States. Only 19 percent of these criticisms were directed at nations listed as "unfree" in Freedom House's respected annual listing of free, partly free, and unfree nations. So Israel was twice as likely to be hammered by the mainliners as all the unfree authoritarian nations put together. The fixation on Israel left little time and inclination for these churches to notice the most dangerous violations of human rights around the world. Not one nation bordering Israel was criticized by a single mainline church or group, the IRD report says. No criticisms at all were leveled at China, Libya, Syria, or North Korea.

Human-rights groups are normally accorded great respect for the work they do. But the rights work of the mainline churches is basically a one-sided expression of ideology--America is essentially viewed as a malignant force in the world, while Israel is seen as nothing more than a dangerous colonial implant of the West. The IRD report says the mainliners' "pervasive anti-Americanism is demonstrated time and again in their public-policy advocacy, and one need not investigate far to find it." Later, the report says, "When U.S. policy cannot be blamed, the mainline denominations seem less interested in speaking up for the victims."

Or Maybe He's Jesus . . .

2004-10-13T08:32:00.000-07:00

From John Edwards yesterday:

"We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases...When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

John Kerry, Malignant Narcissist

2004-10-12T08:08:00.000-07:00

Today World Magazine's blog has a powerful post with some astute psychological insight from an airborne ranger infantry veteran of Viet Nam:

John Kerry needed no recovery time from his three “wounds.” How does one get “wounded” and yet not need to recover from those “wounds”? John Kerry did not earn his purple hearts; he wrangled them from the system through deception so he could go home early and get out of eight months of combat. That is despicable and shameless. I’ve heard commentators and even veterans say that they respect John Kerry’s service in Viet Nam. I have no respect whatsoever for his service in Viet Nam, or for him. John Kerry exhibits the characteristics of a Narcissist. Narcissus, for whom this malignant character flaw is named, fell in love with his image in a pool of water. The image replaces the self as the center of concern. The main problem is that the image is two dimensional: it has breadth and width, but lacks depth. Further, while the image may appear grand and heroic on the surface, there is no substance to it. My high school friend, a true hero, didn’t take a camera with him to Viet Nam, but Kerry did—with the express purpose of recording his imaginary exploits and feeding his grandiose image of himself. Narcissists cannot be trusted; and they can be very dangerous: especially when they become paranoid about protecting their image, especially when they occupy positions of great authority and consequence. A man without depth and substance—a man who stands for anything and everything depending on how it affects his image—is not fit to be president. We need truthfulness and character in the White House, and John Kerry lacks both.

And yet 45 percent or thereabouts of the US population wants this turncoat in the White House. The post-1960s rise of narcissism among the general population has normalized the behavior of a John Kerry. Scary.

Making Terrorists Deportable

2004-10-08T08:40:00.000-07:00

Daniel Pipes is endorsing an amendment to H.R. 10 which:

Strengthens immigration law in regard to the inadmissibility and deportability of alien terrorists and their supporters. Provides that all terrorist-related grounds of inadmissibility would also be grounds of deportability. Makes attending a terrorist training camp an inadmissible and deportable offense. Strengthens the grounds of inadmissibility and deportability regarding providing money or other material support to a terrorist organization.

It's amazing that "terrorist-related grounds of inadmissability" are not already grounds for deportation, but such is the course of suicide by stupidity the nation has chosen. You can use our Basic Contact Links to express your support for the amendment to your congressional rep.

The Undead Issues

2004-10-06T08:37:00.000-07:00

Just a reminder that, during this long dark posting drought, lots of still-pending action issues can be found in the archives both here and at my former blog Political Devotions. In fact, for your convenience, Political Devotions has the posts categorized by topic at the left of the page. It's all part of the service, ma'am. :-)

I'll Be Back

2004-09-29T08:55:00.000-07:00

My sincere apologies for the lack of posts this week. A recent influx of work has really cut into the blogging time. Gotta put food on the table, unfortunately, so posting will be sparse, if at all, for a week or so.

What a Creep

2004-09-24T08:52:00.000-07:00

More evidence as to why decent people admire and respect Statesman Dick Cheney and despise Spoiled Narcissistic Gigolo John Kerry:

Cheney Blasts Kerry for Allawi Comments

Vice President Dick Cheney chastised Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Thursday, saying his criticism of Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi showed an appalling "lack of respect."

Allawi, who was in Washington on Thursday to address a joint meeting of Congress and meet with President Bush, gave a rosy portrayal of progress toward peace in his country. Shortly after he spoke, Kerry said the prime minister's assessment contradicted his own previous statements as well as the reality on the ground.

Cheney said Kerry was being disrespectful of a man who had survived an attack by Saddam Hussein's assassins.

"I must say I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Senator Kerry showed for this man of courage, when he rushed to hold a press conference and attack the prime minister, a man America must stand beside to defeat the terrorists," Cheney told several thousand supporters.

"John Kerry is trying to tear down all the good that has been accomplished, and his words are destructive to our effort in Iraq and in the global war on terror," Cheney said. "As Prime Minister Allawi said in his speech, and I quote, ‘When political leaders sound the siren of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence.' End quote."

If you would like to do your part in defeating Kerry in November, the Republican National Committee is taking signups for its 72 Hour Taskforce here.

It's a Felony, Kenneth

2004-09-23T08:14:00.000-07:00

Charles Johnson, editor of the premier warblog Little Green Footballs, has issued a call to action on Rathergate. LGF currently receives 100,000 to 200,000 visits a day. If I were Dan Rather, I'd be scared — scared as an innocent armadillo being hunted by a pack of sadistic Republican rednecks on a too-hot Texas afternoon, as Dan might say. Here's part of the sample letter for your congressional rep or senator:

I believe that somewhere in this great nation there is someone who is guilty of perpetrating a crime, a crime against the American people. They are guilty of the crime of election fraud, guilty of attempting to influence the upcoming presidential election through deceit and misrepresentation. Such an attempt is abhorrent and must not be tolerated.

As I write this, CBS is asserting that the content of the memos has been vindicated by virtue of some 30 year old opinions, carefully selected opinions at that. They are defending forgeries with selected opinions!

I am writing to you to request that you support a Justice Department inquiry into this event. I want to know who it was that made the attempt to influence my vote by providing fraudulent documents to CBS. I want to know how and why CBS broadcast this fraudulent message to millions of American voters without sufficient safeguards to ensure the veracity of the story. Such actions by the media cannot be simply rationalized away.

A crime has been committed. Right now, CBS is abetting that crime. Media source confidentiality does not apply when the source provides blatantly false information in the commission of a crime.

We cannot, we must not, allow an attempt such as this, to subvert our electoral system, to go uninvestigated and unpunished. Turning a blind eye will only encourage more outrageous acts in the future. I expect you, as my representative, to pursue this travesty to its rightful conclusion.

The entry includes legislator contact links or, as always, you're welcome to use the Ten Minute Lobbyist's Basic Contact Links.

Hate Speech Against Homeschoolers

2004-09-22T09:04:00.000-07:00

Michelle Malkin brings us an amazing story of Education Monopoly hate-mongering:

The public school establishment hates homeschoolers. They've smeared the movement as a conspiracy of conservative Christian zealots. They've scoffed at homeschooled kids as social pariahs. They've painted homeschooling parents as uneducated and negligent.

And now, under the guise of preparing students for a violent terrorist attack, educators in one public school district are casting homeschoolers in the role of bomb-detonating militants.

She quotes the Muskegeon Chronicle's story on the drill:

"The exercise will simulate an attack by a fictitious radical group called Wackos Against Schools and Education who believe everyone should be homeschooled. Under the scenario, a bomb is placed on the bus and is detonated while the bus is traveling on Durham, causing the bus to land on its side and fill with smoke."

This is not a joke. A taxpayer-funded drill is using public school students to enforce anti- homeschooling bigotry under the guise of preparing for terrorism. Terrorism by whom? By Islamic jihadists who hijack planes and incinerate kids headed to Disneyworld. Islamic terrorists who take hundreds of children hostage in Beslan, force them to drink their own urine and shoot babies in the back. Islamic terrorists who groom toddlers as suicide bombers.

Our enemies are Islamic extremist murderers. Except if you happen to attend the Muskegon County, Mich., schools, where the menacing faces of terrorism belong to parents who make untold sacrifices to give their children the best education they know how by schooling them in the loving environment of their own homes.

I recall the Islamist-sympathizing admonition included in the National Education Association's touchy-feely, post-Sept. 11 curriculum: "Do not suggest that any group is responsible" for the terrorist attacks, one tip for parents and teachers urged. Unless, it should be amended, you can work an anti-homeschooling hate angle into the lesson.

When President Bush's education secretary, Rod Paige, likened the NEA in jest to a "terrorist organization," teachers' union officials and the media became completely unhinged. How dare he make such an odious comparison, they gasped. How dare he make light of the real terrorists, they fumed.

"I can tell you what my first response was: Scary. That's really frightening," said Diana Garchow, a special-education teacher at Highland Elementary School in Bakersfield, Calif., to the Associated Press after Paige's remarks. "It's scary that you can't voice an opinion in this country without being called a terrorist. . . . I don't care if it was a joke or what it was, that was a totally inappropriate comment."

Paige was forced to apologize to teachers. What about the Muskegon County, Mich., school system? Will its public education militants apologize to homeschoolers for taking an intolerant swipe at their beliefs? Or will this politicized "Wackos Against Schools and Education" terror drill be coming to a classroom near you?

If you would like to express your opinion to the guilty parties, the Happy Homeschooler has contact information here.

Vote Early

2004-09-17T10:36:00.000-07:00

An alert from President Bush:

The election is less than seven weeks away and our momentum is building. As I travel the country, the crowds are big and the mood is upbeat. There is real excitement for our agenda, and I know that this enthusiasm will mean a tremendous turnout.

On Election Day, you may be one of many who will be working the polls, driving voters to their polling locations, or making Get Out the Vote calls. Our message must be: No matter what you're doing, be sure to vote. The stakes are high.

Starting today, you can request your ballot by mail, and soon you can cast an early ballot at early vote locations in your area. If you're going to be busy on November 2nd, I encourage you to take this opportunity and vote early. There's even a special page on our campaign website to make the process easier.

www.GeorgeWBush.com/VoteEarly

Using this link, you can get your Absentee/By Mail ballot request or find a list of early voting locations near you. By casting your vote early, you can avoid lines at the polls on Election Day and still be sure your voice is heard in this important election.

This election is critical for our nation.

The choice is between winning the war on terror by defending the homeland, taking the battle to the terrorists and fighting them where they live and train - or retreating to a pre-9/11 worldview that treats acts of terrorism as a law enforcement issue.

The choice is between a practical approach that puts doctors and patients in control of health care decisions or a government-run system that would cost more than $1.5 trillion and put bureaucrats in charge.

The choice is between an economic agenda that recognizes America's economy is growing, but can do more, or an agenda that raises taxes, increases regulations and stifles our economic recovery.

Your vote is important to winning and to building a safer world and a more hopeful America. I hope you will take the opportunity to vote early - either by mail or in person.

www.GeorgeWBush.com/VoteEarly

Suicide by Stupidity: How John Kerry Would Destroy Western Civilization

2004-09-16T11:44:00.000-07:00

In a recent editorial, The Wall Street Journal analyzed the Kerry-Edwards nuclear arms control policies. The policy as to North Korea is laughably naive. The policy as to Iran is flat-out insane:

Mr. Edwards recently said that a Kerry Administration would allow Tehran to fire up its Russian-built nuclear reactors, and even provide them with fuel, so long as the mullahs agreed to let the international community repossess the weapons-usable byproducts.

This too is the triumph of hope over experience. Just yesterday the member countries of the International Atomic Energy Agency were meeting in Vienna to discuss the next steps in response to nearly 20 years of Iranian deception. Two years ago an Iranian resistance group alerted the world to Iran's previously undeclared nuclear sites, and subsequent inspections have provoked a familiar pattern of bluster and lies that practically screams "bomb program."

Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center points out that the fresh nuclear fuel that Messrs. Kerry and Edwards want to give the mullahs is already halfway along the enrichment process toward being weapons-usable. With sophisticated and hidden enrichment capabilities of the type we know Iran already has, the country could be within days of having a bomb core were it to seize and divert the reactor fuel. In any case, the mullahs are currently ruling out the possibility of a Kerry-Edwards type deal, demanding to be recognized as a normal nuclear nation with a right to control all stages of its nuclear fuel cycle.

IAEA member states are increasingly frustrated by the mullahs' deceptions and may be ready to refer them to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions by next time the IAEA meets in November. We wish we could be more confident that the Bush Administration was working on pre-emptive military options should they become necessary. But at least it has refused to accept the inevitability of a Persian nuke. "We're determined that they're not going to achieve a nuclear-weapons capability," says Undersecretary of State John Bolton.

The essence of the Kerry-Edwards proposals, by contrast, is that if Iran and North Korea have a history of dealing in bad faith it's because we Americans aren't being cooperative enough. "The idea that there's a big bargain out there that the Iranians will live up to is nutty in light of the last six months," says the Nonproliferation Center's Mr. Sokolski.

So Americans really are getting a proliferation policy choice presented to them this November. If voters think that arms-control agreements like those in the 1970s and during the Clinton years are the best way to rein in rogue states with nuclear ambitions, they should vote for the Kerry-Edwards ticket.

Why California is Like Hell With Beaches

2004-09-15T09:23:00.000-07:00

Take a look at the list of objectionable bills on the Governator's desk (descriptions courtesy The Campaign for California Families):

AB 358: Eliminates the distinction between male and female in state law

AB 1520: Creates a state-endorsed transsexual veterans memorial

AB 1918: Forces school districts to pay to undermine marriage in family leave policy

AB 2580: Awards marriage-like solemnization to "domestic partners"

AB 2871: Government-sponsored "needle exchange" program for drug abusers

AB 2900: Forces transsexual agenda on businesses, schools and foster care

SB 1159: Allows doctors and pharmacists to distribute drug needles without a prescription

SB 1234: Hate-crime agenda infringing on free speech and imposing transsexuality throughout the Penal Code

SB 1313: Exempts "volunteers" from having to report the sexual abuse of children

SB 1343: Promotes "nanny government" encouraging mothers to place their infants in day care

If you would like to voice your opposition to any or all of these, the Campaign has contact information here.

Tell CBS to Come Clean

2004-09-14T13:18:00.000-07:00

The Media Research Center has a demand for the Rathergate network:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. --- Media Research Center President
Brent Bozell today challenged CBS News to apologize to the American people for its false and misleading reporting on President Bush's National Guard service, as well as to come clean with the public and expose the people who forged documents that falsely cast Bush in a negative light.

"Until CBS atones for its complicity in this character assassination attempt of President Bush, the letters ‘CBS' will stand for ‘Can't Believe Squat.' With every Watergate-like denial, the integrity of CBS News continues to crumble," Bozell said.

Evidence Against CBS News Has Continued To Mount

As CNSNews.com first reported, and NBC,
Washington Post, Fox News Channel and others have repeated, independent experts say CBS's "memos" appear to have been produced by a modern word processor, not a 1970s typewriter.

Both CNN and the Washington Times have quoted other independent experts who declared that the signatures on the documents could well be forgeries.

The Los Angeles Times found Major General Bobby Hodges – who CBS claimed to be its key source – who revealed he had never seen the documents, had only had them read to him, and upon seeing them declared they were fakes.

Both Jerry Killian's widow and son have stated publicly he would not have written these memos. CBS refused to put Killian's son on the air after interviewing him, and also refused to interview others whom Killian recommended because they were "Bush supporters."

The CBS News story did not disclose that one of its key sources, former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes, is a major fundraiser for the Kerry campaign and that he has raised the campaign $500,000. Nor did the accusations that Barnes is not telling the truth – coming from his own daughter, no less! – ever see the light of day on CBS.

The Dallas Morning News reported over the weekend that the commander who supposedly was blamed for pressuring a subordinate to "sugar coat" Bush's record had retired 18 months before he was said to have applied such pressure.

"The CBS story is a hoax and a fraud, and a cheap and sloppy one at that.. It boggles the mind that Dan Rather and CBS continue to defend it. Dan Rather and CBS need to be reminded that the cover-up is always worse than the crime. Just ask Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton," Bozell said.

If you would like to demand an apology and full disclosure from CBS, the National Legal and Policy Center has comprehensive contact information.

Comforting Beslan, Confronting Islam

2004-09-12T16:43:00.000-07:00

We who believe in a just God can take some small comfort in the knowledge that the Islamic terrorist scum who were killed in the process of torturing and murdering Beslan's children are now facing an eternity of torture in Hell. But our comfort is not the priority.

If you would like to donate to a fund to benefit the surviving victims of the Beslan massacre, you can do so here. Money cannot erase the horror permanently imprinted on these children's minds, but it is something. It's a kind gesture. It's not enough, but it is what we can do.

Several commentators have stated Beslan is a turning point in the war. This may be so. Islamic terror's most staunch supporters, and its most ardent appeasers, are having a tough time justifying this kind of depravity. Yet, for the morally weak, righteous indignation fades. Three years ago, after 9-11, the nation was virtually united behind a President who promised to take the battle to the Islamic terrorists. Today some 42% of the population is prepared to elect to that high office John Kerry -- an opportunist who, a generation ago, gave testimony that effectively aided our enemies while advancing his own political interests.

Will the world's moral outrage over Beslan sustain? It's possible, but doubtful.

Nevertheless, in his most recent essay for National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson does find hope in the fallout from Beslan, and again masterfully articulates the rationale for confronting, not appeasing, evil:

Ask yourself: What do a Russian ten-year-old, a poor black farmer in Darfur, an elderly pensioner in Israel, a stockbroker in New York, and a U.N. aid worker in Afghanistan have in common? In the last three years, they have all died in similar ways: Unarmed and civilian, they were murdered by a common cowardly method fueled by a fascist ideology.

The recent slaughters in Russia were the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back of excusing or explaining away radical Islamic terror. If the Estonians can break away from post-Soviet oppression and free themselves from Russian authoritarianism without slaughtering schoolchildren and blowing up airplanes, then the Chechens can as well — but only if they wish to create democracy rather than an Islamic fascist state.

But there is something else going on here besides the cloak of so-called Chechen nationalism. The perversion not of religion per se, but of Islam; the singular method of suicide bombing rarely found elsewhere; the frequent resort to the unique grotesquery of beheading; the now-common display of abject incompetence on the battlefield coupled with craven slaughter of the noncombatant and civilian aid worker. At some point, the leaders of the Western world (if there are any left besides George W. Bush and Tony Blair) are going to look at all this madness worldwide and come to the bitter conclusion that there is a disgusting pattern: Not every Muslim is a fascist terrorist, but almost every fascist terrorist is a Muslim. Killers are not screaming "Hail Mary" when they machine gun children in the back, slit the throat of airline stewardesses, or blow pregnant women up on buses across the globe. And they are not the subjects of condemnatory fatwas in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Their grievance is not really Russian imperialism, or the 5 to 10 percent of the West Bank under dispute, or black African encroachment on Arab land, or purported French insensitivity to legitimate Islamic pride, much less an American "crusade" to harm Muslims.

All these issues and the hundreds of others — from the right to build a reactor in Iran to the desire for a semi-autonomous Chechnya — in theory could be discussed, argued about, and adjudicated through democratic dialogue.

But that is impossible. For you see, the real problem is the democratic dialogue itself— unknown in the Arab Middle East and much of the Islamic world, and a hindrance to both sharia and the pan-Arabist thug with epaulettes and sunglasses. Yet consensual government alone is the key to ending failed statist economies, gender apartheid, religious intolerance, state- controlled media, and tribalism. It alone might stop the self-induced misery and with it the tedious scapegoating of "the Jews and America."

Much of the Islamic Middle East continues to blame others for its own induced catastrophe, apparently unaware — thanks to the lever of oil it didn't discover, doesn't know how to develop, and uses to intensify rather than alleviate its poverty — that its entire culture is becoming an international pariah. Islamic young men on European flights are looked at with distrust; they are not welcome in Russia. China wants none of them. They are wary of visiting India. Australia learned from Bali. The whole world is watching — in disgust.

In short, the suicide bomber, the improvised explosive device, the car bomb, the televised beheading, the wacko fatwa, the sleazy propaganda streamer on the Internet, the new cult of death — all cowardly and lethal phenomena — these are now the innovations that the world associates with the Middle East in lieu of gene research, car production, or computer breakthroughs.

***

Some insist that this war is only against a few "crazy" extremists and that it cannot be won by force. That is half true. In fact, millions of young Middle Easterners are watching Islamic fascists to learn whether to applaud or condemn them — and that decision in places like Najaf, Fallujah, Kandahar, Madrid, Grozny, and Ramallah sadly hinges as much on resolute force as it does on "sensitive" understanding. There are millions we must help, but there are also thousands of wannabe Osama bin Ladens and Mohammed Attas who have neither minds nor hearts that anyone would want to win over.

In a war against such killers, it is the proverbial "Them or Us." Islamic fascists are not crazy — however crazy they sound — but evil, as their evil work confirms. We do not need more lectures about the impossibility of winning a postmodern conflict, about al Qaeda's not following the laws of Clausewitz or being immune to our way of war. In fact, we can and have defeated them. Keep doing that and the "hearts and minds" of others in the region, whom we are already helping, will mysteriously prove more open to dialogue.

Fail again like we did on September 11 — and the entire United States Treasury could not buy the good will of an Islamic Street once more gone mad with delight for having felled the Great Satan.

Planned Parenthood's Illegal War

2004-09-10T09:16:00.000-07:00

Dawn Eden is doing the Lord's work at her fine blog, The Dawn Patrol. Her investigative pieces on Planned Parenthood are all must-reads, but her latest is one of particular import:

Yesterday's post featured Planned Parenthood Golden Gate's black T-shirt declaring "WARNING: PRESIDENT BUSH IS HAZARDOUS TO WOMEN'S HEALTH"—today, I give you the white version. Since it's the PP affiliate's best-selling item, naturally they're offering some variety. Besides, the red on white is a nice metaphor for the blood of the innocents.

What nerve of Planned Parenthood, a tax-exempt organization barred from taking a position on a candidate, to mount a nationwide campaign to oust President Bush—especially when his administration alloted it a record $254.4 million for the fiscal year ending June 2003.

After I wrote yesterday about PP's blatantly flouting tax laws, a reader phoned the IRS to complain. The IRS representative was very interested—especially when the reader said that PP had already been the subject of a similar complaint from a California law firm.

Apparently, the IRS looks very unkindly upon organizations that continue to flout the law while a complaint against them is under investigation.

This abuse by a pro-abortion nonprofit is an important issue, because pro-abortion groups keep a close eye on pro-life nonprofits such as Priests for Life, to the point that they can't even appear to endorse or oppose a candidate. On a similar note, Planned Parenthood begins its manifesto "Vision for 2025" by deriding "people who count themselves among the religious right" for trying to "control the polical agenda." For that organization to then act as a law unto itself, thinking that it can break the rules with impunity, is hypocrisy. Add to that the fact that it's soaking us taxpayers to the tune of over a quarter-billion a year, and we have good reason to demand an end to its tax-exempt status.

The entry includes contact information for the IRS, and more examples of illegal political activity you can cite when lodging your complaint.

Fight Media Newspeak

2004-09-09T13:07:00.000-07:00

More fine work from Michelle Malkin:

The third anniversary of Sept. 11 is upon us. We remain at war -- and the media remain in denial.

How many times have you picked up a newspaper and read about terrorist attacks perpetrated not by Muslim terrorists, but by generic "militants" or "guerrillas" or "rebels" or, as Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes noted the Pakistan Times called them, "activists"?

Contrast the media whitewashing of our Islamofascist enemies with the press coverage of the Waco, Texas, siege in 1993 -- which constantly reminded us that David Koresh and his Branch Davidian followers were members of a "peculiar religious sect" (New York Times, March 3, 1993) and "a group of religious zealots with a known propensity for violence" (Washington Post, March 2, 1993) who were steeped in a "culture of Christian extremism" (San Francisco Chronicle, April 20, 1993).

A Nexis search of the terms "Branch Davidian" and "religious" and "cult" in The New York Times for the year 1993 yielded 151 hits. The vast majority of these references were in headlines and news articles, as opposed to editorials, letters or book reviews. A Nexis search of the terms "al Qaeda" and "religious" and "cult" in The New York Times for the year 2004 yielded just one article -- a magazine piece in March.

The mainstream media pounded President Bush for trying to explain that the War on Terror is unwinnable in a conventional sense. The mainstream press itself proves the president's point every time its reporters disguise the deadly fanatical nature of our opponents in this global war. How are we to win a war against blood-spattered enemies whom our own free press continues to protect through politically correct sanitization?

It wasn't no-name militants or wayward guerrillas who have butchered, beheaded and slaughtered thousands of innocents over the last three years alone.

The rest of the column lays out highlights from the long litany of Moslem atrocities perpetrated over the past 25 years, and offers this rebuke: "They tell us to ‘never forget.' First, let's stop misremembering"

No reasonable person would dispute the importance of the press in a democracy, but there is no formal checks and balances system in place to reign in the Fourth Estate when it abuses its power. Complaints from conscientious consumers can, however, make a difference. Next time you see Islamic terrorists euphemized into "militants," "guerrillas," "gunmen," "rebels" or "activists," take ten minutes to send a complaint to the outlet's ombudsman or a letter to the editor. The press' liberal bias may be endemic and incurable, but it should not be uncontested.

UPDATE: Daniel Pipes lists the euphemisms and the euphemizers:

Assailants - National Public Radio.

Attackers – the E conomist.

Bombers – the Guardia n.

Captors – the Associated Press.

Commandos – Agen ce France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as "membres du commando" and "commando."

Criminals - the Tim es (London).

Extremists – U nited Press International.

Fighters – the Washington Post.

Group – the Australian.

Guerrillas: in a New York Post editorial.

Gunmen – Reuters.

Hostage-takers - the Los Angeles Times.

Insurgents – in a N ew York Times headline.

Kidnappers – the Observ er (London).

Militants – the Chicago Tribune.

Perpetrators – the Ne w York Times.

Radicals – the BBC.

Rebels – in a Sydney Morning Herald headline.

Separatists – the Christian Science Monitor.
And my favorite:
Activists – the Pakistan Times.

Forbes on Iran

2004-09-08T08:30:00.000-07:00

It's a rare occasion when I can voice an "Amen" to every idea presented in an editorial, but that is the case with this recent Steve Forbes piece:

The news from Iran is grim. This Islamic dictatorship--the biggest source of terrorist training and financing in the world and the nation that's doing all it can to stir up trouble in already combustible Iraq--is clearly on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power. The clerical fascists running the country have dropped just about all pretense of their atomic programs being energy-related only. Tehran announced in July that it had resumed making the centrifuges needed to produce highly enriched uranium, a key ingredient for nuclear bombs. It is, in essence, tearing up last fall's agreement with the UN International Atomic Energy Agency to keep its nuclear program transparent and to do nothing that could be construed as developing nuclear weapons.

Iran, more than Iraq or the reorganization of our intelligence agencies, is the crisis flashpoint in our war against Islamic fanaticism. What to do? John Kerry's advisers and many Bush Administration officials think we should deal directly with Iran. The Europeans would support us. The goal: to persuade Iran--through cash, trade agreements (its economy is a mess) and pats on the back--to halt its nuclear arms program. These so-called realists in this instance are the dreamers, the fantasizers.

Why wouldn't Iran go nuclear? Our ten-year dawdle over North Korea's nuclear adventurism hammers home to Tehran's corrupt, totalitarian-minded thugs this inescapable conclusion: Nukes mean respect, mean security--and they grant blackmail power to shake down billions in booty from the U.S. and other Western moneybags.

The implications of a nuclearized Iran are appalling. Fanatics in Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere will be emboldened to undermine existing governments. Israel may well feel the need to strike, just as it did against Iraq's nuclear facility in 1981.

The all-too-real possibility of a violent Israeli reaction--Israel has long considered Iran's black- robed fascists to be its ultimate enemy--may be the only possible deterrent to Iran's final nuclearization. But that's not likely, given that the mullahs have probably dispersed their nuclear capabilities around the country. Iran, moreover, is not defenseless; it has missiles that can hit Israel.

Read the whole essay for the rest of Forbes' analysis, and his proposed solution. Could someone explain to me again why we can't elect this guy president?

Questions for Moslems, and Liberals

2004-09-07T11:49:00.000-07:00

In the aftermath of the Beslan massacre, Dennis Prager has some questions:

According to The New York Times, when the terrorists took over the Russian elementary school, they shouted "Allahu akbar" ("Allah is the greatest").

Does this surprise you, dear reader? Does it shock you that the people who deliberately attacked a school and then systematically shot and blew up little children did so in the name of Islam?

Unfortunately, the question is rhetorical. Having targeted little children for death, there is no atrocity, no barbarity, no act of evil that the human race cannot imagine fanatical Muslims committing.

. . .

First, is there anything in Islam or in the way Islam is now taught and practiced that dulls the conscience and thereby enables many religious Muslims to engage in or support atrocities that other groups, religious and secular, find inconceivable?

Second, the laudable condemnations of Islamic terror made by the Islamic Center notwithstanding, why are there virtually no public demonstrations of Muslims against the unspeakable evils committed by its adherents?

And while posing questions, here are two for liberals: Why are almost the only people asking these questions aloud conservative and religious? Where are you when it comes to acknowledging evil?

Yes, some people do shoot children, and good people have a right to ask why.

Some questions I would add: Do you think people who torture, rape and murder Russian children would hesitate for one second to use nuclear weapons or other WMD against American children? Should they be allowed to develop those weapons, and be allowed virtually unfettered entry into this country?

Send an 'I Vote Values' Message

2004-09-03T11:12:00.000-07:00

CitizenLink has set up a powerful CapWiz form you can use to send a brief but important message:

Election Day is fast approaching -- and as those running for office seek to secure your votes, there's an important message you can send them.

This year, I'm voting my values.

Don't underestimate the importance of this simple statement: Candidates need to know that when they look to line up your support, you're going to be looking past the slick advertisements and election-year promises and focusing instead on how their values line up with yours. And that's going to be the criteria on which you cast your ballot.

We've made it easy for you to send this message, loud and clear, to a whole host of people who need to hear it: your congressman and senators, your governor, your state elected officials -- and Ed Gillespie and Terry McAuliffe, the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic National Committees.

We've even composed the simple message for you to send: "I'm voting this year, and I'm voting my values." (If you'd like to change that message and compose your own, just delete what we've written and write type out your own thoughts.)

To send this message -- which will take no more than a few keystrokes -- visit the CitizenLink Action Center at the link below.

http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=6294521

A Call to Obedience - for Clergy

2004-09-02T10:43:00.000-07:00

An important alert from Focus on the Family's CitizenLink, concerning the push to encourage pastors to preach on participation in the upcoming election:

Clergy Urged to Preach on Voting Values

Focus on the Family and Prison Fellowship are asking pastors to set aside Sundays in September and October to preach about the importance of taking part in November's election.
Focus on the Family has earmarked Sept. 12 as iVoteValues Sunday, encouraging preachers across the country to urge their congregations to register to vote and to vote their values at the ballot box.

And Focus isn't the only pro-family group stressing the importance of voting to churchgoers: Prison Fellowship has launched what it's calling the National Preaching Initiative.

"Christians can't be content to be the silent majority any longer," explained Peter Brandt, senior director of government and public policy at Focus on the Family. "Statistics have shown, in election after election, that believers have stayed home in alarmingly high numbers and that's got to stop if we are to have even a sliver of hope of returning righteousness to government.

"We have a civic and spiritual duty not only to vote, but to be careful to spend those votes on the candidates whose values most closely align with our own."

In that light, Brandt said, it is crucial for pastors and church leaders to educate their congregations about the values that matter to God.

"Some pastors have avoided addressing these topics from the pulpit because they don't think it's appropriate, while others worry that it might cost them their nonprofit status," he said. "Our goal is to show them that civic responsibility is an appropriate topic for a Sunday morning and to assure them that it's perfectly OK to talk about it."

To help pastors to prepare for iVoteValues Sunday, Focus' iVoteValues.org Web site offers sermon outlines and a detailed explanation of what topics can be addressed in church without running afoul of the law. Visitors to the site can also request a Voter Impact Toolkit, which contains promotional posters for churches, a stand-up easel with voter registration forms and a voter resource guide and a letter from Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family.

Prison Fellowship is also offering sermon outlines for pastors who take part in the National Preaching Initiative -- a project that urges clergy to dedicate four Sundays in September and October to preaching on marriage, sexual intimacy, God's natural order and our role as citizens.

Michael Snyder, senior vice president of Prison Fellowship and head of the Christian worldview group the Wilberforce Forum, said it is time that the church and Christians got back to the basics.
"The church as a whole no longer understands even the very basics about Gods design for living and in terms of God's design," he explained. "We have four simple elements that apply to everyone, whether you're a believer or not."

The message of the sample sermons is, first, that the church needs to understand what marriage really is and that the counterfeits that exist today do not amount to marriage. Second, that sexual intimacy is only meant to be expressed in the safety and bonds of marriage. Third, that through sexual intimacy in marriage comes children and therefore a family. And finally, that family is the institution that God created to raise healthy, productive citizens for the benefit of society as a whole.

The importance of that message, Snyder said, cannot be overemphasized.

"Frankly, the church has just as much sexual sin as the rest of society and it is very sad because in effect, it paralyzes the body of Christ from wanting to engage (in the battle for our culture,)" he said. "In essence we want the church to take the log out of its own eye before we start trying to correct the very bad vision of those who have an agenda on the other side."

In addition to the four sample sermons, the National Preaching Initiative Web site offers information about the Federal Marriage Amendment, research materials and articles from Prison Fellowship founder Chuck Colson's "Breakpoint Commentary."

The alert lists links to each of the sites it mentions. If you believe your pastor would consider preaching on civic involvement during the runup to this the most crucial of American presidential elections, be sure to e-mail him the link to this alert.

On Goodness and Ingratitude

2004-09-01T08:23:00.000-07:00

The unparalleled moral clarity of Dennis Prager is again displayed in his most recent column:

Of all the ugly human traits, ingratitude -- the refusal to acknowledge the good that has been done for us -- is probably the ugliest.

Yet its awfulness is only exceeded by its ubiquity. In fact, it is ingratitude that characterizes much of the world's -- including many Americans' -- attitude toward the United States.

Think about it. Without America:

The world would collapse into economic and moral chaos. Cruelty and economic depression would dominate the planet. Vast unemployment and social dislocation would ensue, followed by various forms of secular and religious totalitarianism.

No one would stop the Chinese from conquering Taiwan.

No one would come to Israel's aid when Iran and other Muslim states attempted to destroy that country.

No one would come to South Korea's aid as North Korea invaded and probably prevailed over South Korea, making it a formidable Stalinist force in East Asia.

Japan would rearm and probably seek nuclear weapons to counter emboldened Korea and China.

Russia would probably recommence imposing its will on its neighbors.

Islamic terrorism would increase exponentially -- everywhere, including inside Europe -- as its only real opposition disappeared.

It is American idealism coupled with its dominant economic and military power that alone prevents evil from drowning the world. The many fools of the Left who devote their lives to curbing American power -- from those who manage editorial pages and the news media, to the academics who warn generations of students against American power, to leftist billionaires like George Soros -- do not understand this.

The world's nations should be thanking God or whatever they believe in for America. Instead, most of them celebrate the United Nations, which actually abets evil and increases human suffering.

. . .

One great lesson of American history is that one does good in this world because it is right to do good, not because the recipients will be grateful. We Americans must therefore never judge the rightness of our actions on how much gratitude or censure we receive. So long as we remain the most blessed country on earth, it is our duty to do as much good as we can. In fact, if we don't, we will cease to be blessed.

But the ingrates still deserve the contempt of decent people.

Read it all to discover to whom Dennis presents this year's Ingrate of the Year Award.

More on H.R. 235

2004-08-31T06:33:00.000-07:00

A new alert from Concerned Women for America:

Protect America's Churches!

Can you imagine sitting in church and your pastor preaches on the sanctity of life and the importance of maintaining marriage as one woman and one man and the following week your church is contacted by the IRS and told that it will lose its tax-exempt status and has to close its doors? Unfortunately, this is a possibility and without your help could become a reality for America's churches.

H.R. 235 is legislation sponsored by Representative Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) to end this assault on religious freedom and free speech. His bill would restore free speech to America's churches by clarifying an area of tax law that is currently used to bully churches into silence on political issues. Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code states that churches can not participate in political speech or else their tax-exempt status may be revoked. This law violates our Constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of worship. This law gives the IRS an easy lever with which to bully churches that try to put their faith into practice.

The alert includes links and sample messages for the relevant elected officials, plus a link to a sample letter pastors can send to their Representatives.

The Blood-Chilling Facts

2004-08-30T08:08:00.000-07:00

I have a lot of admiration for the work of Graham Allison, author of the new book Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, so I was pained to learn he has become an advisor to John Kerry, whose record betrays a consistent aversion to the use of force to protect the US.

Nevertheless, the book contains some crucial facts Americans must begin to face, and in his most recent column, George Will gives them a showcase:

The next four years will be the most dangerous in the nation's history because the 9/11 attacks were pinpricks compared to a clear and almost present menace. This year's pre-eminent question, beside which all others pale, is: Which candidate can best cope with the threat of nuclear terror?

. . .

The only serious impediment to creating a nuclear weapon is acquisition of fissionable material - - highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium. In 1993, U.S. officials used ordinary bolt cutters to snip off the padlock that was the only security at an abandoned Soviet-era facility containing enough HEU for 20 nuclear weapons. In 2002, enough fissile material for three weapons was recovered from a laboratory in a Belgrade suburb. Often an underpaid guard and a chain-link fence are the only security at the more than 130 nuclear reactors and other facilities using HEU in 40 countries.

Allison says that at least four times between 1992 and 1999 weapons-useable materials were stolen from Russian research institutes but recovered. How many thefts have not been reported? The U.S. Cold War arsenal included Special Atomic Demolition Munitions that could be carried in a backpack. The Soviet arsenal often mimicked America's. Russia denies that ``suitcase" nuclear weapons exist, so it denies reports that at least 80 are missing. Soviet military forces deployed 22,000 tactical nuclear warheads -- without individual identification numbers. Who thinks all have been accounted for? Russia probably has 2 million pounds of weapons-useable material -- enough for 80,000 weapons.

In December 1994, Czech police seized more than eight pounds of HEU in a parked car on a side street. A senior al Qaeda aide's proclaimed goal of killing 4 million Americans would require 1,400 9/11s, or one 10-kiloton nuclear explosion -- from a softball-sized lump of fissionable material -- in four large American cities.

Of the 7 million seaborne cargo containers that arrive at U.S. ports each year, fewer than 5 percent are inspected. Fewer than 10 percent of arriving noncommercial private vessels are inspected. Given that 21,000 pounds of cocaine and marijuana are smuggled into the country each day, how hard would it be to smuggle a softball-sized lump of HEU on one of the 30,000 trucks, 6,500 rail cars or 50,000 cargo containers that arrive every day?

Intelligent people can differ about all that Allison says. But campaign time is becoming scarce for intelligent differing about how to prevent some American Ground Zero from becoming so poisoned by radiation that no one will be able to come within four miles of it.

Suicide by Stupidity: Visas for Terrorists Still Available

2004-08-27T10:20:00.000-07:00

Informed Americans have long wondered as to whose side the State Department is on in the war on Islamic terror. In a recent column, Joel Mowbray keeps us guessing:

Loophole exploited by the 9/11 hijackers remains open

If al Qaeda wants to strike on U.S. soil before the elections, it still has available to it a gaping loophole it exploited pre-9/11: Saudis' easy access to U.S. visas.

Despite supposed reforms implemented by the U.S. State Department, current statistics—obtained exclusively by this columnist—reveal that nearly 90% of all Saudi visa applicants get approved. To put this in perspective, applicants in most other Arab nations—the ones that didn't send us 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers—are refused visas three to five times more often than Saudis. (State refused multiple requests for comment.)

. . .

State has made some progress, such as doubling the number of names on the watchlist and breathing more life into pre-9/11 programs to identify non-watchlisted individuals who should be barred from the U.S.

What State has neglected to do, however, is enforce the law in Saudi Arabia.

Because of a provision in the law known as 214(b), all applicants are presumed ineligible for a visa until they establish their eligibility. This is supposed to be a high bar to clear, and in most countries, it is. Just not for Saudis. That's why nearly 90% who apply still get approved.

Eight of KSM's 27 handpicked operatives were prevented from entering the United States because of 214(b). Yet the same law that kept out almost one-third of the original 9/11 cell was not applied in Saudi Arabia—and it still isn't today.

If State wanted to get tough on Saudi visa applicants, they would have unfettered discretion to do so. Denials made by a consular officer are not appealable, which means a visa could be denied simply because a Saudi is young, single, and unemployed—the profile of the person least likely to qualify under 214(b) and the most likely to be a terrorist.

State, however, has shown no willingness to put security first. It vehemently opposed Congressional attempts to tighten Saudis' access to visas, and it only closed Visa Express under duress. Late last year—as originally reported here this January—the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh sent a cable to Washington advocating a re-loosening of restrictions on Saudi visas.

With 15 of the 19 hijackers and continued al Qaeda bombings and beheadings, the question must be asked: what additional evidence does State need before deciding to enforce the law?

The question I would ask is: Given this series of transgressions, and the general culture of appeasement and diplomatic naivete at Foggy Bottom, why has Congress not already stripped the State Department of its power to issue visas?

If you would like to ask that question of your Senators and Representatives, and ask them to make visa issuance a law enforcement matter, not one of diplomacy and customer service to foreign tyrannies, feel free to use our Basic Contact Links.

For more alerts, news and commentary, see the "Entries by Topic" section at the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

Two by Ben Stein

2004-08-26T10:35:00.000-07:00

Today Dennis Prager read from a moving essay by Ben Stein on who the real stars are:

How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a "star" we mean someone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model?

Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails. They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer. . .

It's one of Ben's many must-read pieces. And here's another: My Father's Estate.

Middle East History

2004-08-26T09:47:00.000-07:00

For anyone who wants a good understanding of the Middle East and why Israel is an important front in the war on Islamic terror, here are links to two concise and articulate analyses by Empower America and David Horowitz.

Twenty Facts About Israel and the Middle East

The world's attention has been focused on the Middle East. We are confronted daily with scenes of carnage and destruction. Can we understand such violence? Yes, but only if we come to the situation with a solid grounding in the facts of the matter-facts that too often are forgotten, if ever they were learned.
...In sum, a fair and balanced portrayal of the Middle East will reveal that one nation stands far above the others in its commitment to human rights and democracy as well as in its commitment to peace and mutual security. That nation is Israel.

A Middle East History Primer

What is the crime of the Jews that they should not have been welcomed into this unpromising desert -- a tiny sliver of the Turkish Empire -- from the very beginning? What is the crime of the Jews that their infant state should have been attacked by five Arab armies on the day of its creation? What is the crime of the Jews that these Arab states should have continued their war for fifty years without a peace in sight? What is the crime of the Jews that these Arabs should make Jewish women and children the targets of their suicide bombers, and that their leader should call for millions of "martyrs" to plow into the heart of the Jewish sliver to blow up its inhabitants once and for all?
Their crime is that they are Jews....

For more alerts, news and commentary, see the "Entries by Topic" section at the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

The Next FMA Battleground

2004-08-25T11:12:00.000-07:00

An alert from Focus on The Family's CitizenLink:

Ask House Members to Support the FMA

Round 2 in the battle to preserve traditional marriage is set for next month.

The House of Representatives is expected to vote soon — possibly during the week of Sept. 20 — on the Federal Marriage Amendment. The bill, H.J. Res. 56, is nearly identical to the legislation that was voted down in the Senate earlier this summer.

Success in the House is more likely, but still will require the efforts of family advocates like you. That's why we've identified some representatives whose votes would help the bill pass; we urge you to contact them, if you live in their state, and ask them to support the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Each week for the next several weeks, we will publish a new list of 25 names from different states. If no one from your state is listed today, we encourage you to check back.

The alert includes this week's list of 25, complete with easy-to-use e-mail forms for contacting each Rep.

For more alerts, news and commentary, see the "Entries by Topic" section at the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

"A thrice-cursed fascist tyrant and man-killer"

2004-08-25T10:58:00.000-07:00

North Korea may be no source of comity, but it is a source of comedy. Apparently the NoKo officials have been perusing the MoveOn.org Official English Phrase Book. World Mag Blog reports:

More lip from North Korea

North Korea continued its tirade against President Bush, in what some U.S. officials think is a ploy to scuttle nuclear talks and deny him a political success before the November election. As quoted in today's Washington Post:

"Bush is, in fact, a thrice-cursed fascist tyrant and man-killer as he revived the fascist war doctrine which had been judged by humankind long ago and is now bringing dark clouds of a new Cold War to hang over our planet and indiscriminately massacring innocent civilians after igniting the Afghan and Iraqi wars," the statement said. It added: "It is the greatest tragedy for the U.S. that Bush, a political idiot and human trash, still remains in the presidential office of the world's only 'superpower,' styling himself"an emperor of the world.'"

Apparently they've given up on the idea of annihilating us with nuclear weapons and are instead hoping to make us laugh ourselves to death.

Pull The Plug on Taxpayer Funded Bias

2004-08-24T08:34:00.000-07:00

On the November 8, 2002 edition of PBS's "Now," Bill Moyers gave the following commentary:

The entire federal government — the Congress, the executive, the courts — is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. That agenda includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to surrender control over their own lives. It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich. It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable. And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine.
Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you like the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming. And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture...
So it's a heady time in Washington, a heady time for piety, profits and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money. Don't forget the money... Republicans out-raised Democrats by $184 million and they came up with the big prize: monopoly control of the American government and the power of the state to turn their radical ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price.

Did you enjoy that tirade? I hope so. You paid for it.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR, in 2003 received a $363 million federal appropriation, representing a whopping 45% increase in federal funding in just four years. In return for this largess, taxpayers have received, among other choice moments: obnoxious and biased screeds like the one from Moyers, a TV special that even the ultra-liberal New York Times called an "Islamic infomercial," NPR's blacklisting of premier Islamic terror expert Steven Emerson, and reporter Nina Totenberg's expressed wish that Jesse Helms' grandchildren would get AIDS.

Recently Andrei Codrescu, on NPR's "All Things Considered," mocked Evangelicals' belief in the rapture of the saints, offering that "[t]he evaporation of 4 million [Evangelicals] who believe in this [Christian] crap would leave this world a better place."

Even if CPB's outlets had no bias, it would be superfluous. A National Taxpayers Union article puts it well:

When CPB was created in 1967 -- before the Internet, before satellite television, before VCRs or DVDs, before cable TV with hundreds of channels -- a stronger case could be made that there was a public benefit to subsidize other voices and programming. Now, with the media explosion of the past quarter century, there is little justification left for public subsidies.
Why continue to underwrite Julia Child and Emeril Lagasse when viewers can watch the Food Network (where the latter often appears)? Why subsidize history programming on PBS when viewers have the History Channel or can rent history documentaries at their local video store? Along with all the stations on free radio, listeners can tune in over the Internet to hundreds of stations all over the world. And for less than $10 a month, listeners can receive the 100 channels of XM Radio in their cars and homes.

It's time to stop feeding this left-wing dinosaur. Use the Ten Minute Lobbyist's Basic Contact Links to ask your representatives to remove all taxpayer funding from CPB and let it prove itself in the free marketplace of ideas, where dinosaurs tend to become quickly extinct.

For more alerts, news and commentary, see the "Entries by Topic" section at the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

Redefining Poverty

2004-08-23T07:25:00.000-07:00

Here are some excerpts from the executive summary of a revealing report on American poverty by the Heritage Foundation:

The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

[So someone like me who owns no DVD player or working dishwasher is what, sub-poor? — Ed.]

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
. . .The good news is that the poverty that does exist in the United States can readily be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

One point the executive summary does not mention is what an insult such a redefinition of the term "poverty" is to those who are truly poor around the world. We in the pampered West have real problems understanding concepts like "poverty" and "evil," but those who have actually lived with them, like the New Europe nations formerly under Soviet domination, know what these terms mean, in a way that we, without the same experience, cannot.

The summary concludes:

Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation's remaining poverty would quickly be reduced.

Takin' a Break

2004-08-13T11:46:00.000-07:00

Your humble editor will be on vacation for most of next week. If you'd like to continue your ten-minute lobbying sessions during this period, check out the "Entries by Topic" section at the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog.

And for excellent coverage of numerous issues each day, see Stacy Harp's E-Involved site and E-Involved Blog. Stacy's sites should be on everyone's "must visit daily" list. Be sure to sign up for her newsletter, to receive alerts and info throughout the day.

"Kerry on Iraq" - Pass it On

2004-08-13T11:41:00.000-07:00

The Republican National Committee has been doing a little documentary film making. They are out of contention for the Oscar, though, since their film is not leftist, and comprises actual facts.

Here's the alert from GOPTeamLeader.com:

Watch and Forward the Kerry Iraq Documentary

John Kerry's inconsistencies and contradictions on the central front in the War on Terror are the focus of a new 12-minute documentary -- and the Senator's own words completely refute the notion that he is a strong and decisive leader.

After you watch the video, email the link to the video to your family, your friends (even if they are Democrats) and encourage them to watch the documentary and send it to their lists. Lets make THIS the most watched documentary of 2004.

Visit KerryOnIraq.com to view and forward the video.

For more alerts, news and commentary, see the "Entries by Topic" section at the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

An American Hiroshima

2004-08-12T12:03:00.000-07:00

I hate to serve as the Prophet of Nuclear Doom again this week, but a Nicholas Kristof piece in today's New York Times brings up some crucial issues:

If a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon, a midget even smaller than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, exploded in Times Square, the fireball would reach tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.

It would vaporize or destroy the theater district, Madison Square Garden, the Empire State Building, Grand Central Terminal and Carnegie Hall (along with me and my building). The blast would partly destroy a much larger area, including the United Nations. On a weekday some 500,000 people would be killed.

Could this happen?

Unfortunately, it could - and many experts believe that such an attack, somewhere, is likely. The Aspen Strategy Group, a bipartisan assortment of policy mavens, focused on nuclear risks at its annual meeting here last week, and the consensus was twofold: the danger of nuclear terrorism is much greater than the public believes, and our government hasn't done nearly enough to reduce it.

Graham Allison, a Harvard professor whose terrifying new book, "Nuclear Terrorism," offers the example cited above, notes that he did not pluck it from thin air. He writes that on Oct. 11, 2001, exactly a month after 9/11, aides told President Bush that a C.I.A. source code-named Dragonfire had reported that Al Qaeda had obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon and smuggled it into New York City.

The C.I.A. found the report plausible. The weapon had supposedly been stolen from Russia, which indeed has many 10-kiloton weapons. Russia is reported to have lost some of its nuclear materials, and Al Qaeda has mounted a determined effort to get or make such a weapon. [Soon they'll have no problem getting one from Iran — Ed.] And the C.I.A. had picked up Al Qaeda chatter about an "American Hiroshima."

President Bush dispatched nuclear experts to New York to search for the weapon and sent Dick Cheney and other officials out of town to ensure the continuity of government in case a weapon exploded in Washington instead. But to avoid panic, the White House told no one in New York City, not even Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Dragonfire's report was wrong, but similar reports - that Al Qaeda has its hands on a nuclear weapon from the former Soviet Union - have regularly surfaced in the intelligence community, even though such a report has never been confirmed. We do know several troubling things: Al Qaeda negotiated for a $1.5 million purchase of uranium (apparently of South African origin) from a retired Sudanese cabinet minister; its envoys traveled repeatedly to Central Asia to buy weapons-grade nuclear materials; and Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, boasted, "We sent our people to Moscow, to Tashkent, to other Central Asian states, and they negotiated, and we purchased some suitcase [nuclear] bombs."

Professor Allison offers a standing bet at 51-to-49 odds that, barring radical new antiproliferation steps, a terrorist nuclear strike will occur somewhere in the world in the next 10 years. So I took his bet. If there is no such nuclear attack by August 2014, he owes me $5.10. If there is an attack, I owe him $4.90.

I took the bet because I don't think the odds of nuclear terror are quite as great as he does. If I were guessing wildly, I would say a 20 percent risk over 10 years. In any case, if I lose the bet, then I'll probably be vaporized and won't have much use for money.

Unfortunately, plenty of smart people think I've made a bad bet. William Perry, the former secretary of defense, says there is an even chance of a nuclear terror strike within this decade - that is, in the next six years.

"We're racing toward unprecedented catastrophe," Mr. Perry warns. "This is preventable, but we're not doing the things that could prevent it."

In his closing paragraph, Kristof drags out the tired "Iraq is a distraction" argument and blames the Bush administration for ignoring the nuclear proliferation threat. The accusation is unfair. The nature of nuclear threats is such that we would not necessarily know of all steps taken to thwart them. It is obvious more should be done, but it is Democrat leaders who are preventing that.

Imagine the political hay Democrat strategists would make over a pre-election preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear installations. President Bush probably is aware he should mount such a strike now, but he knows it is too politically dangerous. His actions could leave the country in the hands of a President Kerry, who would spend his days in sackcloth and ashes apologizing to Iran, France, Germany and the rest of the "international community" for this dreadful US "war crime." And the nuclear terror attack would come.

Nevertheless, Kristof's threat assessment quotes and data are correct. In fact, he understates the threat by focusing on an American Hiroshima, involving a weapon of only 10 kilotons. During the Cold War, the Soviets fabricated 20,000 nuclear warheads, many in the multi-megaton class, capable of destroying entire regions of the US. Do we know where all of those are?

We conservatives would do well to keep up our ten minute lobbying against the threat of barbarians with nuclear weapons. And hope that God still has some use for our country.

For more information, see "Nuclear Terrorism" under "Entries by Topic" at at the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

Suicide by Stupidity: Mid Eastern Illegals Routinely Released

2004-08-11T11:57:00.000-07:00

Human Events Online reports on the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's shocking policy of releasing captured Middle Eastern illegal aliens into the US population. The policy is outrageous, but what is more outrageous is that ICE officials vigorously defend it:

No Extra Scrutiny for Middle Eastern Illegals at Mexico Border

by Joseph A. D'Agostino
Posted Aug 9, 2004

U.S. government policy requires that young Middle Eastern men who are caught crossing illegally into the United States from Mexico be treated the same as illegal aliens from elsewhere in the world--meaning that if they don't have criminal records, don't appear on government watch lists and are not deemed to be suspicious by the federal law enforcement officers who interview them, they most likely will be released into the U.S. population.

All 19 of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were young men from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. None of them had criminal records, not all were on watch lists, and few apparently raised significant suspicions among American border or visa authorities.

"The law does not differentiate based on nationality. So enforcement does not differ based on nationality," says Reed Little, Detention and Enforcement Officer for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He added that ICE officials must justify their actions before immigration judges.

Asked if a 25-year-old man from Saudi Arabia would be treated at all differently from other illegal aliens coming across the Mexican border, ICE spokesman Manny Van Pelt said, "No."

Van Pelt said the government's general practice is to release apprehended aliens into the United States without requiring bond pending their deportation hearing, unless they have criminal records, are flagged in a government database as a potential threat, or their interviews with agents reveal a potential threat. "It's just a matter of interviewing them and running their names through the database. . . ," he said. "If everything is clean, he will be issued a Notice to Appear." That requires the illegal alien to appear in court at a later date, he said. Illegal aliens deemed to be a threat or who have criminal records are detained until their hearings.

Van Pelt and Little said there is no justification for singling out people from the Middle East and cited Richard Reid, an Englishman who tried to detonate his shoe on an airliner, as an example of a terrorist threat from another part of the world. "There have been people suspected and accused of being Irish terrorists," Van Pelt noted. Also, said Little, immigration agents have to justify their actions with evidence before judges. "We have to be able to inform the immigration judge why we are holding a person," he said. [How ‘bout because he broke the law by entering the country illegally?! — Ed.] "'He's a young man from a Middle Eastern country' doesn't sound very good."

In just the McAllen, Tex., sector of the Southern border, 19,460 nationals other than Mexicans (OTMs) were apprehended between Oct. 1, 2003, and July 28, 2004, according to a local Border Patrol spokesman. One of those was Farida Ahmed, a Muslim woman with a South African passport on her way to New York. She was detained at McAllen International Airport by astute Border Patrol agents on July 19. She is charged with entering the country illegally, possessing an altered passport, and lying to investigators.

ICE does not keep central statistics on OTMs apprehended crossing the Southern border. . . .

One wonders whether these immigration bureaucrats would enforce ethnic profiling, even if it were codified into the law. A serious housecleaning at the Bureau would probably have to follow the law's passage. Use the Ten Minute Lobbyist's Basic Contact Links to send this Human Events piece to your elected officials, and demand a sane policy of ethnic and religious profiling be integrated into border enforcement laws.

For what its worth, you can also contact Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge here, and let him know your opinion of his officials' belief that there is "no justification" for holding Mid Eastern illegals.

For more alerts, news and commentary, see the "Entries by Topic" section at the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

Protect Religious Freedom of Speech With H.R. 235

2004-08-10T12:09:00.000-07:00

With the advent of leftist spies in our church pews, and with so few legislative days left for the 108th Congress, the time to pass HR 235, The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, is at hand. Here is the Family Research Council's analysis of the bill:

Policy Goal:

To provide the full range of protection intended by the First Amendment to houses of worship by eliminating government entanglement in micromanaging the political speech of houses of worship.

Purpose:

The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, introduced in the House of Representatives, would permit houses of worship to engage in the full range of political speech to the same extent that is currently permitted them for issue advocacy and lobbying without compromising the organization's tax exempt status.

Analysis:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

When Congress was debating the Revenue Act of 1954, then-Senator Lyndon Johnson sponsored a floor amendment that banned Section 501(c)(3) organizations from engaging in political activities. This became law and is the reason 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely banned from engaging in political campaigning or endorsing candidates, including speaking out on the moral qualifications of a particular candidate for office.

Johnson apparently proposed this amendment to counteract a nonprofit organization that opposed his candidacy for senator. The law swept up houses of worship with other nonprofits. Neither Johnson, the IRS, nor the Supreme Court has ever asserted that the prohibition is required by the Establishment Clause, nor is there any legal precedent that does so. It is FRC's position that this law is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act would remove government entanglement in reviewing churches' political speech and reduce the burden on the free exercise and free speech rights of houses of worship. It will give back to churches what was unjustly taken from them 50 years ago: the freedom to speak however they feel led to speak, whether the issue is construed as political or not.

Today, religious leaders do not have the freedom to educate their congregations on the issues, and empower them to make a informed decisions. If The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act is passed, religious leaders' First Amendment rights would be restored. They would then be able to engage in lobbying, including issue advocacy, influence legislation, speak out on moral and political issues, take part in political campaigns and endorse candidates, so long as these activities do not constitute a "substantial part" of the organization's activities.

You can read Paul M. Weyrich's informative op-ed on this bill here.

Use the Ten Minute Lobbyist's Basic Contact Links to ask your congressional Representative to co-sponsor and fight for passage of this important legislation.

For more alerts, news and commentary, see the "Entries by Topic" section at the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

Mineta Must Go

2004-08-09T11:10:00.000-07:00

In today's column for the New York Post, Michelle Malkin summarizes the case for firing our dangerous transportation secretary:

August 9, 2004 -- FEW government officials have invited more scorn than Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta. It's long past time for the Bush administration to send him out to pasture.

And it is time for America to purge itself of the addled, anti-profiling mindset of Mineta. He has turned his personal World War II experience into an excuse to do nothing to fight our enemies today.

After 19 Islamist foreign hijackers murdered 3,000 people on American soil, Mineta quickly declared that any profiling taking into account race, ethnicity, religion or nationality would be forbidden in airport security. When 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Croft asked Mineta whether he could envision any circumstance where it would make sense to use racial and ethnic profiling, he responded, "Absolutely not."

Croft followed up: "If you saw three young Arab men sitting, kneeling, praying, before they boarded a flight, getting on, talking to each other in Arabic, getting on the plane, no reason to stop and ask them any questions?" Mineta remained obstinate: No.

Since that interview, Mineta has shaken down airlines for engaging in profiling and continues to lean on the industry to prevent cautious flight crews from applying heightened scrutiny to any and all Arab/Muslim passengers. United Airlines, American Airlines and Continental Airlines have all been forced to settle discrimination cases with the Department of Transportation for a combined $3.5 million. . . .

We cannot win the war on Muslim terrorists as long as we keep learning the wrong lessons of World War II. Mineta is the wrong man at the wrong time in the wrong place. He seeks penance for the past by handcuffing the nation's defenders of the present. To defeat the Islamists, America needs dry-eyed leaders who refuse to be sorry for putting homeland security over hurt feelings.

Use the Ten Minute Lobbyist's Basic Contact Links to ask President Bush to remove Mineta, before another 9-11 makes it obvious that he should have done so.

And for more on transportation security lunacy, read Heather Mac Donald's August 5th piece for the Wall Street Journal: Our Own Worst Enemy.

For more alerts, news and commentary, see the "Entries by Topic" section at the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog.

North Korea: Preemption or Destruction?

2004-08-06T10:21:00.000-07:00

U.S.: North Korea Works on New Missiles

Thursday August 5, 2004 11:46 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States has determined that North Korea is working on new ballistic missile systems designed to deliver nuclear warheads and that it is testing the technology by proxy in Iran, a Bush administration official said Thursday.

Having agreed to a self-imposed test ban, North Korea is sharing technology information with Iran, which carries out missile tests on North Korea's behalf, the administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The missile program is based on Russian technology and has been conducted with help from Russian scientists - help the United States thinks may be continuing, the official said.

A leading military publication, Jane's Defense Week, reported recently that North Korea was developing two new ballistic missile systems that ``appreciably expand the ballistic-missile threat.''

A version of the missile capable of being launched from a submarine or a ship is potentially the most threatening, the weekly said.

Victor Davis Hanson has noted that in war a nation is generally faced with a choice between a bad option and a worse option. North Korea is the paradigm for this aphorism.

In a brilliant October 2003 essay, Gabriel Schoenfeld observed that "If Pakistan is a stick of dynamite, North Korea is a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse."

Today the instant question is: does the US have the political will to extinguish that fuse?

The CIA estimates Kim Jong Il now has enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons. If his nuclear ambitions remain unchecked, North Korea will soon produce dozens of nukes annually. It currently boasts a missile capable of hitting the US West Coast and is developing missiles capable of reaching any US city. Yet, even if its psychopath dictator in fear of massive retaliation refrains from attacking the US, he likely will open a clandestine Nukes "R" Us outlet and sell to any rogue state or terrorist group.

Attempts at diplomacy and appeasement (most notably the Jimmy Carter-brokered Yongbyon Agreed Framework) have proved predictably disastrous. In October Schoenfeld observed that it would be "something of a miracle" if the six-nation negotiations succeeded, and recent developments confirm his prescience.

So, what to do? It is clear preemption, or at a minimum pervasive inspections under the credible threat of preemption, are the only reasonable strategies. Yet a preemptive strike against North Korean nuclear facilities would not be pretty.

In 1981 the Israelis destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor before it "went critical," killing only one person and creating no radioactive contamination. North Korean facilities, however, contain radioactive elements that would create some level of contamination when attacked. Moreover, some facilities are concealed deep inside mountains, making them difficult to destroy from the air with conventional munitions. And any attack would of course encompass only known facilities.

The US would certainly prevail in any resulting hostilities, but the price of extinguishing the "lit fuse" on North Korea would be extremely high. The price of allowing the fuse to burn to detonation would, however, be inestimably higher. As President Bush noted in a June 2002 address at West Point, the US

. . . can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of the potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first.

In Romans 14, the Apostle Paul reminds Christians that we will one day "give an account" of our lives before God's judgment seat. I expect believers alive today will be asked the following question:

In the early 21st Century, when communists and Islamists joined forces in a [successful?] attempt to destroy Western civilization with nuclear weapons, what did you do to stop them?

Personally, I'd like to be able to give a good answer.

Our leaders will take bold action only if they are sure the electorate supports it. Use the Ten Minute Lobbyist's Basic Contact Links to inform President Bush, your Representative and Senators of your support for a preemptive strike against North Korean nuclear facilities, should the regime continue to reject demands for complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling of its nuclear weapons programs.

For more alerts, news and commentary, see the "Entries by Topic" list at the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog.

Political Correctness Trumps Passenger Safety

2004-08-05T10:03:00.000-07:00

Today the Washington Times editorializes on Department of Transportation political correctness placing the traveling public — not to mention citizens in targeted buildings — in jeopardy:

There does not appear to be a formal quota system in place for screening passengers. But a considerable body of evidence suggests that, beginning in the Clinton years and continuing after September 11, something no less troubling has taken hold: a mindset and series of practices that discourage the use of common sense in deciding who should be permitted to board a plane.

Much of this is outlined in the remarkable testimony delivered June 24 before the Senate Appropriations Committee by Michael Smerconish, an attorney and radio talk show host from Philadelphia. Mr. Smerconish recounted a discussion he had with Herb Kelleher, founder and chairman of Southwest Airlines, in which Mr. Kelleher said that random screening (the silliness which often subjects small children and elderly passengers to added security scrutiny, known as secondary screening) was instituted by the Clinton Justice Department, which was concerned about equality of treatment.

DOT stated earlier this year that "secondary screening of passengers is random or behavior based. It is not now, nor has it ever been based on ethnicity, religion or appearance." This raises an interesting question for Mr. Mineta: Given the reality that the September 11 hijackers had ethnicity, religion and appearance in common, does it make sense to ban any consideration of these factors in deciding who may board a plane?

Regarding the existence of an arbitrary limit on the number of passengers subject to extra screening, Edmond Soliday, United Airlines' former vice president for security, told the September 11 commission that one Justice Department official informed him that "if I had more than three people of the same ethnic origin in line for additional screening, our system would be shut down as discriminatory." Was Mr. Soliday making this up?

In his Senate testimony, Mr. Smerconish raised legitimate questions about DOT's decision to levy a $1.5 fine against American Airlines -- which lost 17 of its personnel on September 11 -- for refusing to allow an American of Arab background to board a flight to Los Angeles at Logan Airport in Boston on Nov. 3, 2001. (The man was acting suspiciously, and his name was similar to one on a terrorism watch list, among other things.)

The editorial closes with an invitation to Mineta to respond to Smerconish's legitimate questions, and explain "why he apparently takes such a dogmatic position against a limited, common-sense use of ethnic profiling at the airport -- now very much a part of the modern battlefield."

You can extend that invitation to Mineta yourself, at the DOT's contact page, and use the PoliticalDevotions.com Take Action Page to copy your Representative, Senators, and President Bush.

For more links, see AIRPORT INSECURITY at Michelle Malkin's weblog.

For more alerts, news and commentary, visit the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

A 370 Billion Dollar Scandal

2004-08-04T09:24:00.000-07:00

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial offered some damning stats on the state of public education:

What Money Can't Buy
Education spending goes up, performance doesn't.

Friday, July 30, 2004 12:01 a.m.

Reg Weaver, President of the National Education Association, took to the podium in Boston this week to say that John Kerry was his man. And why not? Nearly one in 10 of the delegates to this week's Democratic convention belongs to a teachers union.

Mr. Kerry had canceled his appearance at the NEA's own convention at the last minute earlier this month, only to scramble and address it by satellite the next day after Mr. Weaver protested. The little scheduling snafu notwithstanding, if you're a teachers union leader, what's not to like in a candidate who has called for "fully funding education, no questions asked?"

We would have thought that calling for the feds to throw tax dollars at a problem with "no questions asked" was a little much, even for a Senator from Massachusetts. But the call for more spending looks all the more unthinking in the light of a study just-released by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.

Though it zeroes in on local rather than state spending, the most obvious point underscored by "K-12 Education: Still Growing Strongly" is that whatever the problem with education, it's not caused by any unwillingness to throw more money at it. Between 1997 and 2002, state and local governments increased K-12 spending by 39%. Even after adjusting for inflation and growth in pupil enrollment, real spending was up nearly 17%. And it went up in every state, even those with strict tax and spending limits.

So what did we get in return? The Rockefeller study didn't say, so we decided to look at test scores for reading because there's probably no skill more fundamental to life-long learning. When we cross-referenced spending increases with the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading scores, we found virtually no link between spending and performance.

The table here tells the story. The states are ranked in order of their real, K-12 education spending increases from 1997-2002. Next to each state we list whether performance on the NAEP reading tests rose, fell or remained largely the same from 1998-2003--the period when the spending benefits should have kicked in. It's not as if the states were starting from a high base, either: According to these same tests, fewer than a third of fourth- graders are proficient in reading, math, science or American history.

The results are a direct refutation of the We Need More Spending chorus. . . .

The real problem is that, notwithstanding the $370 billion the states spend each year on K-12 public education, it remains a rare American monopoly. This election year we are going to hear candidates calling for all manner of new education spending. The question so few of them--Republicans included--are addressing is this: Is there any other part of American life that would receive tens of billions of more dollars if it kept showing no improvement in performance?

Use this link to find your state's home page, where you can contact your governor and legislators to lobby for school privatization, vouchers and homeschool-friendly laws. And be sure to visit GetTheKidsOut.org for information on alternatives to the government school gulag.

For more alerts, news and commentary, see the "Entries by Topic" list on the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

FCC Wants to Hear From You

2004-08-03T10:50:00.000-07:00

Focus on the Family's CitizenLink reports:

FCC Seeks Violence Comments

Government regulators want to know what you think about violent television programs. They claim your answer could influence policy.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the government agency charged with regulating the broadcast airwaves, wants to hear what you have to say about the impact of violent television on your kids.

Your comments may influence decision-making and government action.

Specifically, the FCC is calling for comments from parents across America concerned about the impact of excessively violent broadcast television programming on children — parents like Natalie Mead, who says her house has strict TV rules.

"I don't want my kids to be thinking violent thoughts, or to be . . . seeing those images in their heads and so I don't want them to watch violence," Mead said.

The FCC action came only after a directive from members of Congress, according to Steve Isaac, online editor of Plugged In magazine.

"Here we have an opportunity, an extended invitation, from the FCC: 'We want to know what you think about violence on TV,' " he said. "So, we have to take advantage of that."

Popular shows such as Fox's "24" and CBS' "CSI" push the envelope of violent programming, while the FCC looks the other way, Isaac added.

Lara Mahaney, a spokeswoman for the Parents Television Council, said the call represents "the first time they've really started to take a look at" TV violence.

"They ask the questions: 'Is it harmful to kids?' 'What's its effect?' Well, there've been over a thousand studies that said that there's a causal connection," she said.

She said public outcry is exactly what it will take to rein in excessive violence on broadcast TV.

The generic pronouncement against "violence" by pro-family groups is facile. There is, of course, righteous Lone-Ranger-vanquishes-the-bad-guys type violence that is actually healthy for children to see. But this gesture from the FCC does present a good opportunity, one conservatives should seize.

The article includes links to the FCC "Notice of Inquiry" and a CapWiz form you can use to send with one click the same message to all the FCC commissioners.

For more alerts, news and commentary, visit the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

Barbarians With Nuclear Weapons

2004-08-01T23:50:00.000-07:00

The Mad Mullahs' Manhattan project marches on. There were two pieces of not-so-great news this weekend. From Friday:

Iran Said Insisting on Enriching Uranium

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran, intensifying a standoff over its nuclear programs, has told European officials it will not back down on its right to proceed with uranium enrichment, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.

"The British and the French tell us Iran insists it will not back down on its right to proceed with enrichment," the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters.

During a meeting in Paris on Thursday that included Germany, the three European delegations responded that halting uranium enrichment was fundamental to a deal negotiated with Tehran last October, the U.S. official said.

The Europeans added that "nothing else was coming if Iran didn't get back on the road to suspension, leading to cessation of enrichment and reprocessing," the American said.

And from Saturday:

Iran Says it Resumes Building Nuclear Centrifuges

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said Saturday it had resumed building nuclear centrifuges, which Washington says are intended to enrich uranium to weapons-grade for use in bombs.

Iran's decision backtracks from a pledge in October to the European Union's "big three" members -- Britain, France and Germany -- to suspend all uranium enrichment-related activities.

"We have started building centrifuges," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told a news conference.

However he insisted Iran had not resumed enriching uranium, the key part of the process which can either produce fuel for power stations or bomb material.

Iran had previously said it would restart making centrifuges to retaliate against a resolution from the U.N. nuclear watchdog last month deploring Tehran's failure to co-operate fully with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Diplomats say Iran has also restarted work at a uranium conversion facility near the central city of Isfahan. The plant turns processed ore, or yellowcake, into uranium hexafluoride gas which is pumped into centrifuges to form enriched uranium.

On Sunday Islamist murderbots attacked churches in Iraq and killed 11 Christians. They would like to kill 111 million Christians in the US, of course. They just lack the means to do so. For now.

And what would John Kerry do about this? Well, according to his convention speech: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." After we're nuked, he will certainly do . . . uh . . . something.

As concerned citizens, our two major short-term objectives should be as follows: 1) George W. Bush's re-election. 2) Assuring President Bush that there is popular support for an attack on Iran's nuclear installations, by either the US or Israel, even prior to the election if necessary.

How do we create this popular support? By publicizing the danger, and the solution. On July 12th prominent Evangelicals staged "Marriage Protection Sunday." This was an important effort, but let's get our priorities straight. What we really need is a "Protection From Iranian Nuclear Attack Sunday," lest our same-sex marriages occur amongst the nuclear rubble of a dozen US cities.

Once again: Anyone, including a rogue state or a terrorist network, can win a war if they possess nuclear weapons and are willing to strike first. If we fail in our efforts to prevent such a strike, there will be no second chance.

Certainly such a grave threat warrants at least one communication to your elected officials each week. You can express your support for the attack to president Bush at the White House Contact Page, and use the PoliticalDevotions.com Take Action Page to copy your Representative and Senators.

For more alerts, news and commentary, visit the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

What You Can Do

2004-07-30T11:05:00.000-07:00

Been wondering what you can do to keep Dubya in the White House and avert the disaster of a Kerry-Edwards administration? Check out the Republican National Committee's GOPTeamLeader.com:

GOPTeamLeader.com is an online toolbox for Republican activists.
It is personalized and local.
GOPTeamLeader gives you the power to quickly voice your opinions and influence your Representatives.
Once you become a Leader, you can use GOPTeamLeader.com to:
Learn about and help fellow Republicans running for office in your state, as well as on a federal level;

Track and research local and federal issues and bills of interest to you;

Write your local and federal representatives, while accessing official RNC talking points from GOPTeamLeader.com;

Collect GOPoints by completing Action Items and redeem them for collateral of your choice, ranging from leather PDA covers to folding chairs.

Encourage participation in the political process by building your own Team of activists who you can share information with.

Okay, the GOPoints thing is a little corny. Sort of reminds me of the old "Win this bike by selling our seeds!" pitches I used to get in the mail as a kid. Nevertheless, this is a nice networking strategy. And since, like a good Ten Minute Lobbyist, you are already lobbying your elected officials, why not earn a cool tote bag while you're saving Western civilization?

For more alerts, news and commentary, visit the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

Welcoming Terror

2004-07-29T20:11:00.000-07:00

For those of you who don't already know, Michelle Malkin now publishes a weblog, and a fine one it is. Today she has truly shocking coverage on the scandalous neglect of our southern border: TERRORISTS DON'T STOP AT THE RIO GRANDE.

And for your edification and action, here's a rerun of a March 2004 Political Devotions entry on the same subject:

Open Borders in a Time of Terror

"There's no relationship between immigration and terrorism."

- Spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza.

"I don't think the events [of 9/11] can be attributed to the failure of our immigation laws."

- Head of the immigration lawyers' guild, one week after the attacks.

When Islamic terrorists finally achieve their dream and detonate ten nuclear devices in ten US cities, the "Cause of Death" entry on America's death certificate should read: "Stupidity, complicated by shortsightedness and apathy."

Okay, maybe that's a little harsh. But there is no question the nation is in grave danger, and in his essay Keeping Terror Out: Immigration Policy and Asymmetric Warfare, Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, tells us why the phrase "Home Front" is no longer a metaphor.

Some key points:

The enemy has penetrated nearly every element of the US immigration system by exploiting its weaknesses.

A normal level of visa scrutiny would have excluded almost all the 9/11 highjackers from entry into the US.

Every major Al-Qaeda attack or conspiracy in the US has involved at least one terrorist who violated immigration law.

Immigration control is to asymmetric warfare what missile defense is to strategic warfare, yet our immigration response to 9/11 has been piecemeal and poorly coordinated.
There is a sense that Justice and Homeland Security department bureaucrats are searching for ways to "tighten up immigration controls that will not alienate one or another of a bevy of special interest groups."

A strategic assessment of what an effective immigration-control system would look like is needed.

The most important flaw in the "visa filter" is that the State Department, with its corporate culture of diplomacy and currying favor with foreign governments, remains in charge of issuing visas.

Most illegal alien terrorists were visa "overstayers," yet the INS's statistics division declared it could no longer estimate the number of people who have overstayed their visas.
There is continued resistance to using the military to back up the Border Patrol, even though controlling the Mexican border is an important security objective.

Because of lack of space, most aliens in deportation proceedings are not detained. They receive a "run letter" instructing them to appear for deportation. To no one's surprise, 94% of aliens from terrorist-sponsoring states disappear instead.

Outrageous "sanctuary" policies instituted by cites across the country prohibit city employees, including police, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities or even inquiring as to a suspect's immigration status.

Enforcement of the 1986 prohibition against hiring illegal aliens has all but stopped.

"There is a general sense among many political leaders that enforcing the immigration law is futile and, in any case, would displease important constituencies."

Finally, Krikorian observes what ought to be obvious to all parties involved: "If our immigration system is so lax that it can be penetrated by a Mexican busboy, it can also be penetrated by an Al-Qaeda terrorist."

You can read the essay in PDF format here.

In an approach that is not only irresponsible but incredibly foolish and impractical, elected officials and government bureaucrats have persisted in avoiding actions necessary to secure our borders, in favor of their short-term goal of pleasing special interest constituencies. You would think they might at least have the common sense to recognize that nuclear devastation might adversely affect their little fiefdoms. No such luck.

Use our Take Action Page at PoliticalDevotions.com to demand legislation to implement sustained, redundant and comprehensive immigration law enforcement.

For more alerts, news and commentary, visit the PoliticalDevotions.com Weblog

The Basic Contact Links

2004-07-29T15:48:00.000-07:00

Here are links for quick and easy communication with your elected officials and media outlets.

Click Here to access the White House's contact page.

Click Here to send a letter or e-mail to Congress.

Click Here to send a message to your media outlets.