I need your help to stop this train before it leaves the station!

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote this week on a bill to mandate massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by electrical, industrial, and transportation sectors in a vain attempt to reduce the unfounded threat of cataclysmic global warming.

The hype and good intentions driving this train would yield devastating consequences.

Energy costs would skyrocket, with residential electricity prices expected to escalate 40 percent by 2020. The U.S. would lose a projected 1.8 million jobs in 2020 and 4 million in 2050 to nations like China and India, which are not subject to emissions restrictions. Gross domestic product (GDP) losses could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030.

What is even more troubling is that poor people in this country and around the world would suffer the most as the rising costs of all goods make mere subsistence increasingly burdensome and millions of people in underdeveloped regions of the world would find it even more difficult to have the cheap and abundant energy they need to escape their desperate circumstances.

All this would come with an almost immeasurable reduction in global climate temperatures. This is a price too high for a policy based on science disputed more and more each day by thousands of scientists and climatologists.

Christians have a responsibility to practice environmental stewardship. But any action should first consider its impact on God’s most prized creation, human beings.

If you agree, please tell your senators to oppose the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 3036). You can call them by dialing the Capitol switchboard at 202/224-3121. Or click here to e-mail them a suggested letter or one entirely your own.

Thank you for joining me as a voice of reason to stop this bill before it crushes livelihoods and liberties.

Click here for more information on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007

Click here to sign the “We Get It!” campaign on environmental stewardship

Several courts have been declared judicial emergencies, such as the 15-seat Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has only five judges serving.

Much of the problem rests on the shoulders of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, which must send judicial nominations to the full Senate for a vote.

Pressured by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and others to kick the confirmation process into gear, Leader Reid agreed two weeks ago to vote on three circuit court nominees by Memorial Day.

While his commitment is welcome news, it only begins to address the crisis of vacancies on the courts. The American people and our overburdened courts deserve more than a bare minimum pledge. All this pledge does is put the Senate on track with recent historical averages of 15 to 17 circuit court nominees confirmed during the final two years of a presidency when an opposing party has controlled the Senate. Given the many vacancies in the federal judicial system, we need more than an average response by the Senate.

President Bush has carried out his constitutional duty to nominate well-qualified judges who are committed to the original intent of the Constitution. Now Sens. Reid and Leahy must fulfill their part to allow votes to confirm or reject them.

If you agree, please tell Sens. Reid and Leahy to move swiftly on—and go beyond—the commitment to give three circuit court nominees fair, up-or-down votes. You can call them at the numbers below. Or, if you live in Nevada or Vermont, click here to email them a suggested letter or one entirely your own.

Sen. Harry Reid, Majority Leader
(202) 224-5556

Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Judiciary Committee
(202) 224-4242

Thank you for your concern. Your action could make all the difference.

On Feb. 16, a critical law authorizing our intelligence community to monitor foreign terrorists’ communications expired.

That’s why the modernized Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA—which amends the 1978 law—is urgently needed.

Since the horrific 9/11 attacks, many telecommunications companies have helped keep us safe from another attack on U.S. soil by cooperating with our intelligence agencies to intercept phone conversations of foreign terrorists into our country.

Now, without an amended FISA, our intelligence agencies are hamstrung from intercepting foreign communications unless they have a warrant, and phone carriers lack retroactive immunity from lawsuits leveled against them at the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars for admirably protecting you and me. Meanwhile, our national security is continually placed at greater risk as our foreign enemies can easily pass information into our country without us knowing it.

Liberals in Congress appear more interested in empowering the lawyers to sue the telecommunications companies than they are in providing for the security of United States citizens.

The Senate passed an update to FISA last month with strong bipartisan support, 68-29. But the House leadership has failed to give it a vote, despite its broad support in the House.

If this is a concern to you, please tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to schedule a vote on the Senate-passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and urge your representative to support the bill.

You can call them by dialing the Capitol switchboard at 202/224-3121. Or click here to e-mail them a suggested letter or one entirely your own.

Thank you for your doing your part to help keep America safe from those who wish us harm.

If you’ve watched any television lately, you know that the programming is flooded with vulgar language and sexuality. Unfortunately, a federal appeals court has only encouraged more indecency, ruling last summer that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could not sanction Fox for airing the F-word and S-word during the Billboard Music Awards in 2002 and 2003.

This decision greatly curtails the FCC’s authority to fully enforce a new law—passed with your help—to fine broadcasters up to $325,000 per indecency violation, and opens the door for networks to routinely air fleeting expletives between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children are likely to watch television.

The Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act would restore authority to the FCC by requiring the agency to “maintain a policy that a single word or image may constitute indecent programming” on broadcast television and radio when aired during the family hours.

In December, you generated enough pressure to move the bill one step closer toward passage. Specifically, we asked you to urge the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee to move S. 1780 out of committee, where it had been collecting dust for nearly five months. The result: the committee approved the bill that week.

But now S. 1780 sits idle on the Senate legislative calendar among scores of other bills. Your calls are needed once again.

If you agree that broadcast television should not be given license to air offensive language and images, please contact your senators and urge them to ask Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to bring the Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act to the floor for a vote.

You can call your senators by dialing the Capitol switchboard at 202/224-3121. Or click here to e-mail them a suggested letter or one entirely your own.

For more information on broadcast indecency:

Calls, E-mails Help Shift Broadcast Decency Bill Into Gear

Why the Second Circuit Ruling Against the FCC Is Wrong, Part 1

Why the Second Circuit Ruling Against the FCC Is Wrong, Part 2

Thank you for taking a few minutes to help protect families from the onslaught of indecent media.

As thousands of people participate in the March for Life in Washington and millions more throughout the country reflect in sorrow upon the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, one of the U.S. Senate’s first items of business when it returns to the Capitol today will likely be consideration of legislation to permanently ban certain types of funding for abortions.

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) intends to offer an amendment to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (S. 1200) to codify a longstanding policy to bar federal funding of abortion with Indian Health Service (IHS) funds, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest of a minor.

The Vitter Amendment is equivalent to the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding of abortion through Medicaid. The Hyde Amendment, enacted in 1976 as part of the annual Health and Human Services (HHS) Appropriations bill, bears the name of longtime pro-life Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), who introduced it during his freshman year in Congress and continued to fight tirelessly for protections for the unborn until his death last year.

The IHS program, however, is funded through a different appropriations bill that does not contain a Hyde Amendment. Consequently, abortions continued to be funded through the IHS program until 1982, when the Reagan Administration curbed the practice with a temporary fix. In a 1988 reauthorization of the IHS bill, Congress went a step further by including a section that would apply the Hyde Amendment by referencing the HHS Appropriations bill. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act now before the Senate also contains this section.

But without the Vitter Amendment, a future White House administration could easily open up taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortions through the IHS program.

Passage of the Vitter Amendment would set in place one more safeguard against taxpayer-funded abortions, as well as give countless babies, not yet born, a greater opportunity to live. It would also send a strong reminder to pro-abortion members of Congress that the tide is turning in favor of life.

Though many senators will undoubtedly continue to stand behind their “right to choose” rhetoric, they cannot silence the growing band of pro-lifers who cry out for the estimated 50 million babies whose parents deemed them too costly, too inconvenient, or too embarrassing.

If you do not believe taxpayers should be required to fund abortions, please tell your senators to support the Vitter Amendment to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (S. 1200).

Thanks in large part to the calls and e-mails from many of you, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) released the Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act (S. 1780) out of the Senate Commerce Committee last week, clearing it for a full Senate vote.

This follows nearly five months of inactivity on the bill since it was passed with bipartisan support by the Senate Commerce Committee last summer.

Last week, we asked those who want Congress to restore regulations to enforce decency standards for broadcast programming during the family hours, when children are likely to be watching television, to contact Sen. Inouye, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the committee’s ranking member, and urge them to move S. 1780 out of committee. No doubt your calls and e-mails were a decisive factor in moving the bill off a desk and onto the Senate legislative calendar.

Specifically, the Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act would require that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “maintain a policy that a single word or image may constitute indecent programming” on broadcast television and radio.

Such legislation is necessary after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in June that the FCC’s sanctioning of a broadcast network for airing fleeting expletives was “arbitrary and capricious,” a decision that could tie the hands of the FCC from policing such content. At issue was the FCC’s sanctioning of the Fox Network for airing Cher’s use of the F-word during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards and Nicole Richie’s use of the F-word and S-word during the program the following year.

Sen. Stevens, urging his colleagues to support the bill, said, “Whether sitting in a car with your children or in front of the TV, the American public should be able to expect that they will not be barraged with unexpected indecent material, whether it is through an image or a word.”

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission commends Sens. Stevens, Inouye and chief sponsor John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) for pushing S. 1780 forward, and we are grateful for your efforts to encourage them to do so.

Please urge your senators to support the Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act. We will continue to keep you updated on progress on this important legislation.

Senate and House negotiators are hammering out differences on the Defense Authorization bill, and some lawmakers are trying to retain hate crimes legislation in the measure.

Hate crimes legislation would elevate certain individuals, in this case homosexuals, to a special class of citizens and mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses for crimes motivated by an individual’s “actual or perceived” sexual orientation or gender identity.

While many proponents of hate crimes legislation argue that it would only be used to prosecute violent crimes against homosexuals, Christians and others who merely speak against the homosexual lifestyle could be targeted under such a federal law.

Better termed “thought crimes” legislation, it could result in law enforcement officials policing perceived thoughts that motivate violent actions against homosexuals, as well as speech that conveys a negative message about homosexual behavior, even if no violent action follows. A pastor, for example, could conceivably be prosecuted for inciting a hate crime if a congregant commits a crime against a homosexual and a court argues it was fueled by the pastor’s sermon against homosexuality based on his interpretation of Scripture.

If you are concerned that Christians’ biblically-informed speech against homosexuality could be targeted under a hate crimes law, please call or email your congressman and senators and urge them to vote “No” on the Defense Authorization bill if it includes a hate crimes amendment.

You can call your congressman and senators by dialing the Capitol switchboard at 202/224-3121. The operator will then connect you to the office of your choice. If you do not know who your congressman or senators are, or if you would prefer to use email, just click here, enter your zip code in the space provided, and email them the suggested letter or one entirely your own.

For more information on hate crimes legislation:

Click here to read “Hate Crimes, the Thought Police, and Religious Freedom”

Click here to read “Reasons to Oppose Hate Crimes Legislation for Homosexuals”

Thank you for taking a few minutes out of your busy day to voice your concerns on this crucial issue.

In response to that and other disturbing incidents, some lawmakers have since taken strides to ensure that broadcasters can be held accountable and fined for airing indecent speech or images.

Last summer, the Senate Commerce Committee passed the Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act (S. 1780), which would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “maintain a policy that a single word or image may constitute indecent programming” on broadcast television and radio.

Unfortunately, that bill is collecting dust right now. The committee chairman, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and ranking member, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)—both sponsors of the legislation—have allowed S. 1780 to sit idle, rather than moving it forward to the full Senate.

Meanwhile, appeals courts are hearing cases on indecency that could swing wide the door for broadcasters to air vulgar content at all hours of the day, absent a law such as the Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act.

In fact, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has asserted that network broadcasters should have the right to air programming with the F-word and S-word. The court ruled in June that the FCC overstepped its authority when it declared its intent to sanction the Fox Network for airing Cher’s use of the F-word during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards and Nicole Richie’s use of the F-word and S-word a year later at the awards program. The 2-1 ruling stated that the FCC could not sanction networks for “fleeting” expletives.

In September, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the Janet Jackson case, and a decision is expected to be handed down early next year.

Broadcasters have stepped up arguments for their “right” to air vulgar content, particularly in the wake of a law enacted last year that pressures networks to clean up their act by targeting their pocketbooks. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act increases maximum possible fines for each indecency violation tenfold, from a laughable $32,500 to a more burdensome $325,000. But unless the FCC has authority to maintain a policy that a single word or image may be considered indecent, the stiff fines would be meaningless and unenforceable.

Parents should not have to shield their children’s eyes or click the mute button when watching broadcast television during family hours. However, future “wardrobe malfunctions” and utterances of indecent speech are sure to be broadcast into America’s living rooms during prime-time viewing hours unless Congress passes legislation that would restore regulatory authority to the FCC.

If you believe the family hours for broadcast television and radio should be safe for your family, please urge Sens. Inouye and Stevens to move S. 1780, the Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act, for consideration by the Senate before Christmas.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman
202-224-3934

Sen. Ted Stevens, Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member
202-224-3004

While many people mistakenly believe Internet gambling is legal, the activity is outlawed in the United States under a 1961 law known as the Wire Act, which prohibits businesses from using wire communications in interstate commerce to transmit bets or wagers. Unfortunately, enforcement of the law has been difficult.

Last year, however, opponents of Internet gambling achieved a momentous victory with passage of a bill to put in place restrictions to help enforce existing laws against online gambling. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), signed into law October 2006, creates enforcement tools to prevent or interdict gambling on the Internet by prohibiting financial institutions from approving transactions between U.S.-based customer accounts and offshore gambling merchants, thereby making it difficult for people to send money to online gambling coffers. It was included in a port security measure and received wide support, passing 409-2 in the House and with unanimous consent in the Senate.

The bill struck an immediate blow to the bottom line of offshore Internet gambling companies, which had relied heavily on the United States to fill their coffers. Shares for the Gibraltar-based PartyGaming, the largest online gambling company, plunged 58 percent, wiping out $3.8 billion in stock the first day the exchange opened after Congress passed the measure. The company up to that point had generated 78 percent of its revenue from the United States.

Recent polling shows that Internet gambling has continued to drop in the wake of the UIGEA’s passage, even before the regulations have been put in place. A study released in October by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center found that weekly Internet gambling among college-age males fell from 5.8 percent in 2006 to 1.5 percent in 2007. Further, monthly Internet gambling dropped from 8.9 percent to 2.9 percent among this sample.

The UIGEA requires the Department of Treasury and Federal Reserve Board to formulate steps financial institutions must take to block credit cards, fund transfers, and other methods of payment to Internet gambling businesses. Rules will be issued after the two agencies consider public comments, which can be offered through December 12, 2007.

Several members of Congress, however, are pushing legislation that would reverse the positive trends already seen under the UIGEA. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), for example, believes Internet gambling should be both legalized and regulated and has introduced the Internet Gambling Study Act (H.R. 2140), which would require yet another study of the impact of Internet gambling, even though its adverse effects are clear. Other bills, such as the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 2046) and the Skill Game Protection Act (H.R. 2610), would pair the legalization of some forms of Internet gambling with enforcement measures for minors.

By prohibiting gambling businesses from accepting payments over the Internet, the UIGEA has the potential to spare millions of lives from the tragic effects of economic ruin and broken families. But unless strong regulations are put in place and efforts to overturn the law are squelched, offshore Internet gambling companies will continue to prey on Americans.

If you believe Internet gambling should remain illegal, please urge the Department of Treasury and Federal Reserve Board to issue strong regulations on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. Also, tell your congressman or congresswoman to oppose any bill that weakens the UIGEA.

Last week, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) introduced a bill that would prohibit Title X family planning funds from being directed to family planning organizations that perform abortions. The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R. 4133), a measure that would apply only to domestic funding structures, shares similarities with the Mexico City Policy, which requires that foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) must agree as a condition for receiving federal dollars not to promote or perform abortions.

If you oppose the government sending taxpayer dollars to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, please tell your senators to support the suspension of funds to organizations that promote abortions and encourage your congressmanor congresswoman to support the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R. 4133).

While current law forbids family planning agencies in the United States from using Title X funds to perform abortions, funds channeled to abortion-providing clinics inevitably underwrite abortions because they are used to offset operational expenses, subsequently freeing up dollars for abortions.

The biggest target of this bill is Planned Parenthood, which taxpayers subsidize with more than $300 million each year. The organization operates 860 facilities throughout the country and performed more than 264,000 abortions in 2005.

A recent 107-count indictment against Planned Parenthood in Kansas has heightened concern about unlawful abortion practices. Phill Kline, former Kansas attorney general, brought the suit last month in Kansas’ Johnson County District Court, alleging 29 counts of unlawful failure to determine viability for a late-term abortion, 29 counts of unlawful late-term abortions, 23 felony counts of making false information, and 26 counts of unlawful failure to maintain records.

Kline is no newcomer to the abortion fight. Before leaving his position as state attorney general in December, he filed 30 misdemeanor charges against abortionist George Tiller, now infamous for performing illegal late-term abortions in Wichita, Kansas.

A team of 13 senators, led by Sam Brownback (R-KS) and David Vitter (R-LA), are responding to these types of malpractice by urging their colleagues to suspend funding for domestic organizations that promote abortion. The group sent a letter Nov. 6 to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Rep. David Obey (D-WI), urging them to suspend funding in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, the major vehicle for streaming funds to abortion providers.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission also has expressed concerns on the charges against Planned Parenthood. In October, the ERLC joined more than 60 others in a letter urging Congress to suspend federal funding of Planned Parenthood until it can be determined whether the abortion provider in Kansas is guilty of the charges.

If you oppose the government sending taxpayer dollars to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, please tell your senators to support the suspension of funds to organizations that promote abortions and encourage your congressman or congresswoman to support the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R. 4133).