William J. Murray standing in front of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court opened their new fall session by ordering Florida schools to stop allowing prayer at any type of event. What made this decision so odd was that a three judge federal appeals court had already ruled that the Florida practice was Constitutional.

In 1993 school officials in Duval County, Florida adopted a new policy letting high school seniors decide whether to choose a fellow student to give a "brief opening and/or closing message" at graduation. The student could decide the content of the message with no review by school officials. School officials said "the venue is equally available for religious or secular expression." The ACLU claimed it was a religious "sham" and filed suit.

The Supreme Court did not even hear the case. They simply set aside the lower court order upholding the school board by citing their June decision to ban prayers at Texas football games. Once again the Supreme Court as constituted has shown it is out of touch with reality.

A number of cases important to social conservatives were decided this past summer by the Supreme Court, and I have previously reported on them. I want to revisit one of those cases--the partial birth abortion case. In deciding against the state of Nebraska, the Supreme Court lifted the ban on partial birth abortion not only within that state but in all states having such bans. The vote by the justices in overturning the state’s partial birth abortion ban was five to four. Had only one more justice been opposed to this gruesome way of destroying unborn infants, the state laws involved would have been upheld.

Some justices will be replaced in the next four years. Within the next eight years as many as four or five of the nine justices could be replaced. The big question to be decided in the November election is who will pick the replacements? Vice President Al Gore has made the public promise that he will appoint only pro-abortion federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. On the other hand, Governor George W. Bush would most likely appoint pro-life justices.

It would seem that anyone opposing abortion on demand would vote for Gov. Bush, but this is not the case. In fact, most evangelical Christians are not even aware of the importance of this election with regard to the appointment of federal judges and Supreme Court Justices. Indeed, fifty percent of evangelical Christians have so little interest in this issue that they will not vote at all. Internal and public polls predict the following breakdown of evangelical Christian voters:

50% not voting; 22% for Bush; 20% for Gore; 8% for others

Not even one in four evangelical Christians will vote for Bush or for Gore. Indeed the lack of participation coupled with the nearly identical votes for the two main candidates means that the evangelical Christian vote is statistically meaningless. By "statistically meaningless" I mean that evangelical Christian voters will play virtually no role in the election of either candidate. If all evangelical Christians just stayed home, the outcome of the election would be the same. This is sad considering the impact of this next election on the Supreme Court and the nature of change our nation will undergo over the next four to eight years depending on who is elected.

The "Christian right" is identified with the Republican Party. Major media outlets use the terms "evangelical Christians" and "the Christian right" interchangeably. Indeed, when all evangelical Christians are polled the vast majority of them favor the Republican Party and Republican ideas and proposals. Unfortunately for the Republicans the majority of evangelical Christians who favor their cause simply don’t vote. Even as many as 50% of evangelical Christians who refer to themselves as "pro-life" do not vote.

As I said above, as a voter block evangelical Christians simply do not exist. Their votes as a group are "statistically meaningless."

If 100% of evangelical Christians would vote in the next election George W. Bush would win by a land slide and the Republicans would pick up as many as thirty to forty House seats and several Senate seats. Why don’t they vote?

I have a theory as to why evangelical Christians don’t vote. First, they have been brain washed for decades into believing that politics and religion don’t mix. Since they are "religious" they should not vote. Second is the concept of "government" within the church. The authority in the church government comes from Christ. The church is a pyramid of government on which Christ sits at the pinnacle as the head. This image is contrary to the nature of democratic government and I believe in some ways discourages participation in secular government. In a republic the power flows from the people to the leaders and this is not the image of church governance.

Because active evangelical church members do not vote and are not active in the democratic process, they are under represented in government. For example, Baptists are under represented in Congress while the more politically active Mormons are very much over represented in Congress.

Evangelical Christians complain a lot about government and particularly about the Supreme Court destroying the Christian values the nation was founded upon. They watch the continued decline of the American way of life, yet will not commit the simple act of voting to stem the downward spiral.

The year 2000 is a watershed year. Either the moral tide goes up, or continues to sink. If a president is elected who appoints four or five very socially liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda Supreme Court justices, Christians may in a very few years find themselves in jail for public pronouncements of their faith.

In the last three months the Religious Freedom Coalition has mailed more than half a million letters to evangelical Christians alerting them to the effect the upcoming election will have on the Supreme Court. The method used was a three page letter accompanying a questionnaire. The questions themselves were designed to educate. In filling out the questionnaire, Christians learned about the situation with appointments of Supreme Court justices. My hope, and the hope of all of us at the Religious Freedom Coalition is that many of those 500,000 individuals receiving the mailers will be educated on the issue and will decide to vote.

The Religious Freedom Coalition does not promote a single candidate for office. The RFC can, however, educate the public as to the likely results on issues should certain candidates be elected. Thus, the RFC can inform the general public that Al Gore has stated he will appoint pro-abortion judges and that George Bush has stated he will appoint pro-life judges.

The Religious Freedom Coalition will continue the education program through the month of October hoping to reach as many as one million Christian voters with this important information about the impact of the election on Supreme Court appointments.

Florida Republican Congressman Bill McCollum has been a staunch supporter of the pro-life movement and of social conservative values for many years. Then he ran for Senate. Suddenly his picture was on the front page of the Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, as "their" hero. The headline read, "Crimes bill gets boost." The story went on to say how McCollum now favors the passage of Senator Ted Kennedy’s "Hate Crimes" legislation. The legislation in reality makes thinking certain thoughts during a crime a criminal act in itself.

Social conservative organizations in Washington, DC have dropped Bill McCollum just as fast as he has dropped them. He can no longer count on any support from Bible believing Christians in his campaign for the Senate in Florida. His numbers were down slightly before he moved to support the Gay agenda. He moved to the left and lost his base. Since he decided to support the gay agenda, McCollum’s numbers have gotten weaker and it is almost now a certainty that this Republican vacant seat will move to the Democrats this election.

Apparently murder is not too serious of a hate crime. Senator Ted Kennedy’s "hate crimes" bill would actually reduce the penalty for murder. In most states murder can get the death penalty, but under Senator Kennedy’s bill the maximum punishment for a "hate crime" murder is life in prison. Liberals are so predictable.

Is a thought crime a hate crime or is a hate crime a thought crime? Is robbing the bank the crime or is what someone is thinking while robbing the bank the crime? Allow me to illustrate:

A young black man enters a Korean owned convenience store, pulls a gun and says, "Give me your money." He takes the money and runs. This is an armed robbery. A week later the same young black man enters the same Korean owned store, pulls a gun and says, "OK slant eyes, give me your money." This is a hate crime! Because of what he said the young black man may go to jail for twice the number of years, maybe for life!

Why did I pick a young black man for this illustration? Because most of those in jail for committing a "hate crime" are young black men. Yes, this so called "hate crimes" legislation that was first meant to protect African-Americans from the likes of the Ku Klux Klan is more often used against blacks than against whites.

Indeed, the presumption was that whites were the racists and that most of those going to jail for "hate crimes" would be white males. This has not been the case. Let’s examine the last year for which figures were available, 1998.

Of the 16, 914 murders in the United States in 1998, there were only 13 defined as "hate crimes." All the victims and all of the murderers were male. Of those that were "raced-based," five murders were "anti-white," three murders were "anti-black," and one murder was anti-Hispanic. One of the "anti-black" murders was committed by a Hispanic and one "anti-white" murder was committed by a Tongan. There were allegedly four "anti-homosexual" murders.

Ted Kennedy believes that the four "anti-homoseuxal" murders are so special that a specific federal law should exist to make sure the perpetrators are punished beyond what the states would do to them for murder. But ironically, most of those who committed these murders were sentenced to death, something that Ted Kennedy’s bill would forbid. During the same year, 1998, forty-four people died by lightning strike, far more than the thirteen that died because of "hate crimes."

In 1998 African-Americans, who comprise 12.7 percent of the population, committed 18.7 percent of all "hate crimes." Most of those were violent. Most of the "hate crimes" attributed to whites were in the nature of "intimidation." In other words, the whites involved had used offensive language toward a black or a Hispanic.

Going back to the actual thirteen "hate crime" murders, all were resolved in state courts. Several perpetrators were sentenced to death for their behavior. In not a single case was federal intervention required; further, there are already plenty of laws on the books to get the federal authorities involved in a case if they don’t like what the state did. Recall Rodney King? He was the coke head whom police cornered and beat down after a car chase in Los Angeles. The state jury found the officers innocent of any crime but the federals put the cops in jail anyway. So why is the "hate crimes" legislation needed?

Because it is a stepping stone to put people in jail for having certain thoughts even if no crime is committed. It is a precedent that Ted Kennedy and the liberals want to use to jail those who disagree with them. If it is a crime to "think badly" of a homosexual while beating him up, then is it not an equal crime to "think badly" of a homosexual while just looking at him? If it is a crime for a black man to make an anti-white statement while robbing a store, then is it not also a crime for a black to make any public anti-white statement? Should not Louis Farrakan be in jail for making anti-white statements?

Simply put, this law is intended to force people to conform to the "everything is equal" mentality of the liberals. Under their theology we cannot be different, or have different desires or beliefs. We must at all times conform to the thought patterns of the liberals. We must all be their version of "normal". What happens when "normal" changes? Not everyone thinks of "normal" in the same way as does Ted Kennedy in his alcohol fogged mind.

As of now, federal "hate crimes" laws apply only to race, origin and nationality. Ted Kennedy would now include "sexual orientation". Will this thought crimes legislation backfire on homosexuals the way it has on African-Americans? If a fifteen year old boy is lured over the Internet into a homosexual situation is that a hate crime? I would say so and I’ll bet a lot of prosecutors would agree with me. Should this legislation pass, it is my bet that the very first person to go on trial will be a homosexual accused of a hate crime against a normal man or woman.

These thought crime laws are dangerous. These are the things of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany and have no place in a Republic such as ours.

The Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming vote. The liberals and pro-abortion forces in Congress fought hard to stop the vote. The legislation, which was introduced by Charles Canady of Florida, would extend the full protection of the Constitution to a child born during an abortion procedure. Congressman Canady introduced the legislation after a high profile case in Illinois where a baby was born alive during an abortion and then denied medical care. The child took several hours to die, all the while being held in the arms of Catholic nurse who was under orders to render no medical aid.

Even ultra pro-abortion Congressman Jerold Nadler voted for the bill, although not because he wanted to. He said, "The purpose of this bill is only to get the pro-choice members to vote against it so they can slander us and say we are for infanticide. That’s why I voted for it in committee, and that's why we will vote for it on the floor so we do not step into this trap." In other words, Nadler is saying that liberals voted for a bill they did not believe in so that voters could not be told their true beliefs. It takes a liberal mind to think of something like that.

This bill is not law. Like so many social conservative, pro-family bills passed by the House this year, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act now lingers in the Senate. In the Senate, any one Senator, such as Ted Kennedy, can put a "hold" on a bill. The hold can even be secret and cannot be removed without the votes of sixty other Senators. Since the Republicans have less that 60 seats, any one Democrat can effectively block any Republican legislation.

John Hemstreet is leading the disgraceful national campaign against the Boy Scouts. Hemstreet was a Scout leader for 20 years until he was sentenced to four years in jail in 1993 for sexually abusing a 10-year-old boy. He is now a "gay" activist and president of a chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). His number one agenda is to force the Boy Scouts to accept pedophiles such as himself as Scout Masters.

Hemstreet has a friend in the White House. When the Supreme Court this year upheld the Scouts right to ban homosexuals, Janet Reno’s Justice Department began an investigation into the Scouts for discrimination. The outcry was so great that Janet Reno was forced to back down.

Now Hemstreet and his followers have convinced numerous corporations and even chapters of the United Way to stop funding the Boy Scouts. In addition, municipalities and counties across the nation are bowing to homosexual pressure to force the Scouts out of public schools and publicly owned property.

Congressman Tom Tancredo

Enough is enough! My good friend, Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado has introduced the Scouts Honor Act (HB-5306). The Scouts Honor Act would prohibit the federal government from discriminating against, investigating, or denying access to public property or facilities to the Boy Scouts. It would also prohibit any state or local government that receives federal funding from doing the same. The Scouts Honor Act would also prohibit any private organizations, such as the United Way, which receive federal funding, from discriminating against the Boy Scouts. Congressman Tancredo is currently seeking co-sponsors for this Scouts Honor Act. You can help by contacting your congressman and asking him to co-sponsor HB-5306.

THE RITALIN DANGER
By Nancy Murray

The exploding use of the drug Ritalin which is now prescribed to at least 10 to 12 percent (and in some schools up to 20%) of school age boys, has reached crisis proportions. More than 6,000,000 American children are now given Ritalin or some other drug of this type every day! Now some actions are being taken to curb this runaway national drug experiment. Congressman Henry Hyde has called for a congressional investigation. This call came in the same week when two separate class action lawsuits were filed against Novartis, the huge Swiss drug manufacturer which makes Ritalin. Those same suits also name the American Psychiatric Association as co- defendant. The charge is that these two groups conspired to create a market for Ritalin in order to reap financial profits.

Ritalin is prescribed for the newly coined behavioral disorder Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. There are no known physical symptoms of ADHD--the symptoms are purely behavioral. This has sparked a controversy within the mental health profession, with quite a number of doctors questioning whether this disorder even exists, and warning against the side effects of Ritalin, both known and unknown. Often the pressure to prescribe medication comes from school officials who don’t want to deal with rambunctious little boys and would rather have them sit quietly and do their lessons, even if it means they have to be medicated. Many parents, too, like the personality changes they see. And indeed, most professionals agree that there are a few children with concentration and behavior problems so severe that they cannot deal with any school or social situations without medication. But those children are few in number, certainly not the 10 to 12 percent of boys who are now taking this powerful mind altering drug.

No one knows for sure what long term effects this psycho active drug will have on the developing brains of young children, and for that reason many parents and medical professionals want to call a halt to this experimentation, which now affects a huge number of children. One big worry is that children on Ritalin will, when they get older, be more vulnerable to taking other kinds of mind altering drugs.

In at least two incredible cases reported in USA Today and elsewhere this past August, heavy handed school officials in New York state actually tried to force parents to keep their sons on Ritalin, even though the parents said the boys suffered from side effects, and they were worried about possible long term damage. In both cases, the parents were threatened with charges of child abuse and the possibility of losing custody of their children.

This rush to prescribe Ritalin is purely an American phenomenon, and has only come about in the past few years. Many psychologists believe that most, although of course not all, of the kids diagnosed with ADHD are just immature and fidgety, the way boys have always been. Their problems are often made worse by a chaotic home life caused by divorce or by both parents being too busy working. Other common factors which can contribute to hyperactivity and poor concentration include exposure to violent TV and video games, too little exercise, and too much junk food.

The politically correct schools are incapable of dealing with kids who have behavior problems. Most kids probably need both hugs and spankings in proper measure, but teachers these days can give neither without risking jail time. There have been actual cases lately in which school officials have gone hysterical over the antics of little kids. In one well publicized case, a principal called the police when a seven year old boy kissed a little girl on the playground, charging sexual harassment. Recently, another seven year old was suspended from school for three days because he pointed a pretend pistol (made with thumb and forefinger) at some classmates and said, "Bang, Bang!" There was a time when adults had common sense and knew how to deal with boys who were acting up, without resorting to calling the police or giving the kids psycho active drugs. But that was before the federal government got involved in the schools.

 

GAY RIGHTS / SPECIAL RIGHTS The Homosexual Agenda Is a Threat to American Families! Homosexuals are only 1% of this nation’s population, yet our freedom, basic morality, constitutional values, basic welfare and even our CHILDREN are under constant attack by this indulgence oriented group... Homosexuals are targeting our youth by preying on their vulnerability. Homosexuals are redefining the family to include all forms of sexual preference and perversion... Homosexuals have demanded that the 1964 Civil Rights Act be amended to make "sexual preference" a constitutionally protected right! Your church, business and school will be forced to employ homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, or those who practice pedophilia ... It is time for God's people to stand up! Tomorrow will be too late! This video will change you... And only you can change your country! $25.00 including postage! Mail check to Religious Freedom Coalition, P.O. Box 77511, Washington, DC 20013. Offer 00N10. Credit Cards call (800) 650-7664.