On Wednesday, November 5th several staff and Board members of the Religious Freedom Coalition attended the signing by President George W. Bush of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. To accommodate as many as possible who wanted to witness the signing, the ceremony was held in the amphitheater of the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC. Other signings I have attended have been held in smaller rooms in the White House.

The legislative battle over partial birth abortion took several congressional sessions. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was passed twice by Congress during the administration of President Bill Clinton. Both times he bowed to the abortion industry lobby and vetoed the bill.

George W. Bush pledged during his campaign for the Presidency that, if elected to office, he would sign a Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Three years later, he was given that opportunity and, being a man of his word, signed it before hundreds of witnesses.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban (PBA) passed its final legislative hurdle on Tuesday, October 21st. The conference report which adjusted the language of the House and Senate versions to match, passed the Senate by 64 to 34 even though the original vote on the bill was only 52-46. Why the change in votes?

The Democrats owe the abortion industry big time and will use any procedural means to defeat any pro-life legislation. But on a final vote many Democrats facing election next year did not want it on their record that they favored the killing of a baby that was 90% out of the womb. On the House side, the conference report passed by a huge margin on October 2nd.

Before President George W. Bush had even signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, the ACLU, which claims to be a free speech group, along with Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit to find the bill unlawful. The groups actually picked Halloween Day to file the lawsuit in San Francisco.

In a statement responding to the lawsuit, Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee said, "Just in time for Halloween, these groups argue that Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to deliver most of a living premature infant, in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, and then shove scissors through her skull. They are tearing the mask off Roe v. Wade and showing its true face, which is even worse than the mask."

The lawsuits were filed before the President signed the bill because the pro-abortion groups wanted to make sure that not a single baby marked for murder could escape with his life.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Ten Commandments, which are etched in stone at the Supreme Court Building, are unconstitutionally displayed at the Alabama Court House. Judge Roy Moore has lost his battle to display at the State level the foundations of Western law and civilization.

Was this final decision from the Supreme Court based on the Constitution of the United States or on the opinions of courts outside the United States?

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has previously admitted that the Supreme Court relies on "world opinion" and "international law," not the Constitution, to decide social issues. On October 31^st, O’Connor stated that European Union Court decisions were used in considering overturning the Texas anti-sodomy law. She said, "...over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues." She continued that doing so would help to "...create a good impression."

"Good impression" for whom, the mullahs of Iran or the madams of the Paris whorehouses?

The Supreme Court is increasingly deciding cases based not upon Constitutional law, but rather upon creating favorable opinion with the Euro country club set.

President John Adams made it clear that our Constitution was written "...only for a moral and religious people, " and it is "…wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Does the high court see Americans as having moved so far from being a "moral" people that the Constitution no longer applies? This would explain the constant changes being made to the Constitution by the Court to accommodate those who want their various sins condoned by government.

Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution. The very fact that a Justice admits to following "opinion," particularly foreign "opinion," should be grounds for impeachment. President Bush should request the immediate resignation of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

On Thursday, October 30th the Wall Street Journal ran a stinging editorial against liberal Democrats for blocking California Supreme Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown from moving to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Journal made it clear that the Democrat attacks against her led by Judiciary Committee member Senator Richard Durbin were racial in nature.

The Journal stated: "As Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Justice Thomas and others can attest, liberals reserve their harshest and most personal attacks for minorities with the audacity to wander off the ideological plantation..." In his attacks against Judge Brown, Durbin questioned her appointment by the President because she was "from California" and that was "3,000 miles from Washington, DC" where her new job would be. He also said she was "insensitive" to rape victims. The Senator's real problem is that she is a black conservative and liberals don't want any of those "kind of people" to serve in government.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC is a stepping stone to the Supreme Court of the United States. Liberal Senators such as Durbin, Kennedy and Clinton will do everything in their power to stop a black or Hispanic conservative from sitting on that important court. Above all the liberals do not want another Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. As a conservative black, Clarence Thomas sends the message to other African-Americans that they don’t have to think exactly as they are told to by princely white liberals. That is a message the Democrat party does not want in the public square of ideas.

On Wednesday I met with Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) who has proposed the Religious Liberties Restoration Act (S-1558), which would bar arrogant members of the unelected judiciary from making decisions against the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of the Ten Commandments and the National Motto.

Under Article III of the Constitution, the Congress has the right to restrict the jurisdiction and the power of the federal courts. This is not unusual and in fact a provision to restrict judicial review is routinely added to several new laws during each session. When it comes to social issues, however, the Congress has been reluctant to use this power. The last jurisdiction provision on a bill prohibited the federal courts from ruling on a forestry bill that singled out Senator Daschle's home state for preferential treatment.

As of today, Senator Allard has only ten co-sponsors for the Religious Liberties Restoration Act. Before moving forward, more co-sponsors are needed. Please contact your Senator and tell him how you feel about S-1558. The companion bill in the House (H-3190) is offered by Congressman Pickering (R-MS).

Congressman Jim Ryun (R-KS) has introduced an act that codifies the Oath of Allegiance given to new citizens. The current oath that has been used for decades is suddenly being changed by an unelected bureaucrat in the Citizenship and Immigration Service. Some changes in the oath are disturbing. The old oath requires that new citizens swear to "...renounce and adjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty ..." The new version states "...I hereby renounce under oath all allegiance to a foreign state." At first it seems as if it is just streamlined to modern English but the actual change is greater and far more dangerous.

A member of the Taliban could take the oath and still be loyal to Osama bin Laden without ever having lied, because it only mentions a foreign "state." Worse yet, the new oath does not require the new citizens to "support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic." To move forward and defend the Oath of Allegiance in its current form Congressman Ryun needs fellow Members of Congress to co-sponsor HR-3191.

Congressman Jim Ryun is a former Olympic runner. Just a few weeks ago both he and I ran the Army Ten Miler in Washington, DC. Congressman Ryun, who is 56, finished the Ten Miler in 1 hour 18 minutes at a pace of 7:49. My daughter Katie, who had an emergency appendectomy in Guatemala eight weeks prior to the race, ran with me. Because of her operation we ran at about a 10 minute pace, finishing in 1 hour and 40 minutes.

Social conservative leaders met on October 1, 2003 on Capitol Hill for the purpose of agreeing to tough language for the Federal Marriage Amendment. It is my prayer that agreed upon language can be presented to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution chaired by Congressman Chabot (R-OH) before the year is out. Once agreed to during a "mark-up," final language would then be presented to the full House Judiciary Committee chaired by Congressman Sennsenbrenner (R-WI),

It is hoped that a first vote could be held on a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman before the general elections next year. While I am hopeful, I do not believe that any Constitutional Amendment since the Bill of Rights has passed the House on a first vote, or even within the first term it was entered. In fact many of the current Constitutional amendments took as many as seven years to pass and ratify. In the meantime what do we do to defend the institution of marriage? Congressman Hostettler (R-IN), who is a member of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, has proposed the Marriage Protection Act of 2003. His bill would strengthen the already existing Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by restricting the jurisdiction of federal courts. In Hill lingo this is referred to as the "super-DOMA" because it uses Article III, Sections I and II of the Constitution to restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts, including the Supreme Court. As mentioned above, this is not an unusual act and the Congress passes several bills a year with language attached that forbids Federal courts from interfering with congressional acts. Most Americans believe there are three "equal" branches of government. This is false. All power rests with the Congress. The Congress can fire judges, or the President, for that matter. The Congress has the power to shut down any Cabinet office or to restrict the courts in virtually any manner. Because the Congress is often politically divided, the power is rarely used.

I fully support Congressman Hostettler in his efforts to pass the Marriage Protection Act. The Religious Freedom Coalition will work on two tracks to protect marriage. We will support an Amendment to the Constitution and we will support strong legislation such as the Marriage Protection Act. If nothing else, we can have Congressman Hostettler's legislation in place while the lengthy process of a constitutional amendment plays itself out.

Marriage Protection Week as proclaimed by President George W. Bush was October 12th through Saturday the 18th. During that week the Religious Freedom Coalition kicked off an online petition in support of traditional marriage at www.Christianpetitions.com.

If you have not as yet signed the online petition in support of traditional marriage between one man and one woman I would urge you to do so as soon as possible. It is important that Congressmen continue to hear from their constituents on a daily basis.

Learn more about the issues surrounding the attack on marriage. Dr. Bill Bennett has written an excellent book entitled The Broken Hearth which details the attack on the family today. The Religious Freedom Coalition has obtained copies of The Broken Hearth at a special price.

To protect our society and the future of our children, marriage must remain between one man and one woman and not between two men or even between members of a group of polygamists.

Political consultant Dick Morris has written a column telling the GOP to dump the "religious right" and move to the "center". He said the Ronald Reagan coalition of economic conservatives and social conservatives is dead.

Dick Morris is the political consultant who made national news during the Clinton Administration when a prostitute revealed that he would talk to President Clinton on the phone while using her services. This man now works for Republican candidates and is a consultant to the conservative Fox News Network.

Mr. Morris cites the election of Arnold Schwartzenegger as the ultimate proof of his assertion. In an effort to whitewash himself, Morris points to the sexual indiscretions and liberal social views of the governor-elect of California. His logic is simple: If they can elect a Republican who gropes women in California, the next step is to get the vote in the deep South the same way.

Allow me to point out something to Dick Morris. There is not the chance of a snowball in hell that Arnold could be elected governor of Alabama or Mississippi, or Georgia, or Virginia. In fact he may be too liberal for New York. The truth is found in the exact reverse of Morris’s logic. Without social conservatives the Republican Party is dead. Without the social conservative vote in the South and Midwest it would be impossible for Republicans to hold on to the House or Senate. A Republican Party with the pro-gay, anti-family agenda Morris calls for can kiss virtually every Senate seat in the South good by.

Tax cuts may be all that’s important to Dick Morris and some others, but many, if not most Americans have higher standards than a few extra bucks in their pockets.

On Tuesday, October 28, 2003 I debated Dr. James Zogby of the Arab-American Institute on CNN-International. Although the Religious Freedom Coalition has been represented on CNN many times, this was our first live debate on CNN International. CNN is broadcast only to the fifty States, while CNN International is broadcast worldwide.

While James Zogby claims to represent all Arab-Americans, he is actually a Democrat party activist. He is the chairman of the National Democratic Ethnic Coordinating Committee as well as the Arab-American Institute. He is also not a Muslim, but has a Lebanese "Christian background."

During our debate he claimed that General William Boykin should be fired by President Bush because of "insensitive" remarks he made at a church about Islam. The General had made the mistake of identifying our enemy, which is the Islamic Jihad movement. I defended General Boykin's comments about the war on terror being a spiritual as well as physical war, because it is just that.

Unfortunately the President is being pushed by his advisors to fire General Boykin for fear that his remarks have made Muslims "mad" at us. I have news for those advisors; the Muslims who attacked our civilians and murdered them do not have to be incited. They hate Christian Americans because they are Christian and they hate secular Americans because they are secular. No matter what we say or do they are going to continue to hate us and continue to want to kill us all because they are followers of Mohammed. Firing General Boykin who is the Pentagon's man in charge of the war on terror would simply be a victory for the enemy.

NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE

The Catholic Church has joined General Boykin in declaring that Islam is not a religion of peace. For decades the Roman Catholic Church has been more or less silent on the issue of Islam, fearing that Catholics who still live in Islamic countries would be worse off if the church spoke out.

But, the treatment of Christians has become so unbearable in Islamic nations that the Catholic Church can be silent no longer. In the October 18 edition of La Civilta Cattolica, the Catholic Church broke that silence by saying, "Thus, in all its history, Islam has shown a warlike face and a conquering spirit for glory of Allah .... convert to Islam or die." The official paper of the Roman Church said that for "...almost a thousand years Europe was under constant threat from Islam which twice put its survival in serious danger."

Europe is anti-Semitic and craves the destruction of Israel. France is a principle backer of Yassar Arafat, and President George W. Bush must speak softly about Islam to maintain fragile alliances against the terror that stalks us. Each day more Christian leaders are speaking out with the truth about Islam, making it ever more difficult for President Bush to maintain the official line that Islam is a "religion of peace that has been hijacked by extremists." Islam in itself is extreme and the Catholic Church paper illustrated this magnificently.

In October a forum was held in Washington, DC by the Institute for the Defense of Democracy.

The keynote speech at the event was delivered by James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence. Among his many pungent and salient insights:

James Woolsey, of course is no longer CIA Director. We can only hope that those currently in leadership have his insight and understanding of our situation. Shortly after the 9-11 Jihad attack against the United States, the "religion of peace" mantra began, for our leaders feared that identifying the enemy would lead to an oil embargo by Saudi Arabia. As the war continues, the mantra sounds more ridiculous day by day. At best we are facing a hundred years’ war to defend our civilization; at worst we are facing nuclear arms that may be used within the next few years against us.

The RFC Christmas catalog is now available. The catalog contains some of the best selling items we have made available during the past year as well as some special new items for the Christmas season. Among the items in the new Christmas catalog are official RFC Christmas ornaments for 2003.

All items in the RFC Christmas catalog are also available online at www.RFCstore.com