The conduct of Pol Pot was abnormal in that he did push the logic of what he believed into unmitigated actions.
What did Pol Pot believe? Here are some of his beliefs:
      1. Men and women are merely animals and part of the animal kingdom;
      2. There is no God;
      3. The qualities of the human animal are derived from the economic environment in which he is born and reared.
      4. Human nature can be improved and ultimately perfected by the provision of the appropriate environment;
      5. He is one of the chosen who have the responsibility of providing the therapeutic environment;
      6. Physical labor is the creator of human nature;
      7. The “Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, provides a blueprint for the creation of a new and improved human nature;”
      8. The statement in the Manifesto–“By ‘individual,’ you mean none other than the bourgeois, the middle-class owner of property. This individual must indeed be swept out of the way and made impossible”–should be taken literally, and applied as a guide to action.
      Why are so many educated and informed critics of Pol Pot unable to see the connection between his beliefs and his deeds? I suspect that the answer is because they share many of his beliefs while they abhor his actions.
      It is a common human tendency to judge others by ourselves. Consciously or unconsciously, it is easy to conclude, “I believe many of the things Pol Pot believed, but I don’t feel the urge to act as he acted. Therefore, his actions must not have been caused by his beliefs.”
Nevertheless, ideas do have consequences. The Psalmist says, “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘there is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have done abominable works. There is none that doeth good.”

      The great Russian philosopher and author, Fyodor Dostoevsky, said, “If there is no God, anything is permissible.” Pol Pot proved that both the Psalmist and Dostoevsky are right.
      If people are merely animals, why is it wrong to treat them as animals? Consider a rancher who is devoted to an improvement in the quality of his herd. Some of his animals have developed a debilitating disease due to the conditions of their environment. He plans to move them to a new environment but is confronted with the problem of what to do with the animals who have been infected and who may convey the infection to others. He does not hate them; in fact, some of his favorite stock may be involved, but it is necessary to dispose of them so that his better herd may be created.
      To the doctrinaire Communist Pol Pot, the human animals of Cambodia had been infected with the capitalist disease, so he felt it his duty to eliminate the potential sources of infection. His motivation was a strong delusion, not a sadistic hatred.
      Time magazine reports, “The conundrum of the man is that he did not seem savage at all. Before fleeing into the jungle in 1963, the French-educated son of prosperous land-owners, born Saloth Sar, taught school in Phnom Penh and his former students remember him as a soft spoken, even-tempered man. Not angry shouting but with a gentle well-modulated voice.”
      Intellectual pride is at the core of Communist classicide. The antidote is recommended by St. Paul who taught, “In lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than themselves,” and Jesus, who proclaimed the golden rule, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Readers Express More Thoughts About Dr. Schwarz and The Schwarz Report
Dr. David Noebel

      Over the past few month we have received an outpouring of goodwill–for Dr. and Mrs. Schwarz in their retirement, for the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade and for Dr. Bauman and myself.  To say that we are pleased would be an understatement. 

We are thrilled to see such a response of heartfelt goodwill for what we are seeking to do viz., continue the work of Dr. Fred Schwarz and the Crusade and make his writings available to this present generation (and hopefully to the next as well).  
      Our first responsibility, of course, is to this newsletter, but within six months we hope to have a significant portion of the Crusade’s newsletters and some of Dr. Schwarz’ writings on the World Wide Web.  We already have a Web site and when it is ready we will announce it in The Schwarz Report.
      Dr. Bauman and I will continue to give you the best materials available on the subject of Marxism in general and the

various leftist movements and cults in particular vying for the attention of America’s youth.  Thank you for your expression of gratitude for this mission.
                                                    David A. Noebel, for the editors

      From John Anthony: “Dear Dr. Noebel, You write an excellent newsletter! I am so pleased to see that the work of the crusade has been successfully passed along to a group of highly capable and well motivated individuals. I will pray for your success in this venture and for the enlightenment of America.
      “Please find enclosed my payment for the subscription to the newsletter The Schwarz Report. Keep on exposing the left et al and I will expose your newsletters to those who might find it profitable and may also wish to subscribe.
      “My very best wishes for your success. God Bless.”
      From Ted Clayton: “Dear Dr. Schwarz, It was interesting and exciting to receive the first copy of “The Schwarz Report”. It sets high standards in all respects, and will be a challenge to keep future issues so good. It is wonderful that you have been able to make all the arrangements to carry on your work.
      “I will not attempt to find words adequate to express my admiration for the enormous commitment you made to CACC, and the tremendous influence you have had in so many lives! I wish you all the best in the very, very well earned retirement (at least, big change) that lies ahead.
      “With all best wishes, and love always.”
      From Joe Mason: “Dear Dr. Fred: I have followed your ministry since I first heard you speak in a small church in Albuquerque, N.M. It was at the time when Billy Graham was holding a Crusade there.
      “I have just read of your decision at age 86 to step down and turn the work to Brother Dave Noebel. It is my belief that you could not have made a more wise decision. We know of his ministry and of his background. He is truly a steadfast man of God and we pray for him and for his work often.
      “At age 87+ it is good to know that you will continue by writing to be included in the Newsletter. . . .
      “Best wishes as you continue the battle. Expecting to see you as we go up together. Yours in the Beloved.”
      From Herb Richards: “My dear precious brother: Words cannot express my thanks and gratitude for all the work that you have done for us over the cold war period. Your newsletter was always a lift for me to read and encouraged me in the dark years of Russia’s great threat to us.

“I have been a supporter of yours since the early fifties when you came to [my town], and spoke to [my church].
      “You have run a wonderful race and I know God has a great prize awaiting you and those that have helped you in this giant endeavor. I will look forward to The Schwarz Report, David Noebel is a great man. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.”
      From Aida Parker: “My dear David, I cannot tell you how really delighted I was to read that you are taking over the C.A.C.C. and the editorship of The Schwarz Report. I have worked with those people for many years and always held them in the highest regard. I can think of no one better suited to take over this work. I just wish I could do more to help you.
      “Anyway, the very best of luck and good fortune in your new venture.”
      From Patricia Balaguer: “Dear Dr. Noebel: One of the things that I am looking forward to most when the Lord gathers us all together in Heaven, is getting to talk with Dr. Schwarz and giving him a loving hug! What a blessing he has been to me and to myriad others, I am sure. Although blessed with an awesome intellect and awesomely well-read and knowledgeable about so much spiritual truth as well as history , philosophy and political science, he seems to me to be one of God’s best exponents for godly humility and Christian love, delivering his verbal sword thrusts with a holy boldness but without animosity or vindictiveness. He has truly been a much needed prophet for our times and a beautiful role model for those who would serve the Lord and love His people. He richly deserves the time of rest that he is beginning as he returns to Australia.
      “However, Dr. Noebel, I am most appreciative to you for your willingness to take over the torch from him and provide ongoing information and education: I was so pleased and gratified to receive my first copy of the Schwarz Report and I immediately read it through from start to finish! It is excellent. . . . I particularly appreciated the article by Dr. Nash, “Christianity and Marxism”. It confirms so many things that I have felt about the present status of the church in America. I find so many that are and will be so easy to be deceived by the lies of the enemy and I am humbly grateful for the light that God has graciously given me to see the truth that I do. . . 
      “Keep up the good work! God bless and encourage you as you provide God’s truth in this frightening age we live in and ammunition to combat the lies of the enemy! I . . . wish Godspeed to Dr. Schwarz and the best to his wonderful family.”

Jesus Christ, Karl Marx and Jacques Ellul, part 3
by Dr. Michael Bauman

      Not surprisingly, Ellul insists that, like the Old, the New Testament also teaches anarchism. For example, the miraculous catching of a fish with a coin in its mouth, a coin sufficient to pay the temple tax for both Jesus and Peter (Matt. 17:24ff.), Ellul describes as an “absurd miracle,” one designed “precisely to show that the obligation to pay the tax is ridiculous.” By it, Ellul improperly insists, “Jesus held up power to ridicule.” But Jesus’ intention, as he himself clearly indicates, is not to give offence (v. 27). Ridicule is perhaps the furthest thing from his mind–though not apparently from Ellul, who goes on to argue that the payment of such taxes is a matter of indifference; we are free to pay or not to pay. “Doctrinally I should not,” he writes, “but out of love I will”–as if the demands of Christian belief and of Christian love were somehow different.
      Similarly, the standard progovernment views that most theologians take toward Jesus’ famous injunction to give to Caesar those things that are Caesar’s and to God those things that are God’s (Matt. 22:21), Ellul characterizes as “unbelievable conclusions.” Jesus’ words, according to Ellul, as any “pious Jew of Jesus’ time” would surely recognize, mean that, because God is the master of everything, “Caesar is the legitimate master of nothing, except for what he makes himself,” and those things “belong to the order of the demonic.” But considering that the question posed in this passage to Jesus by the Jews concerned the right of Caesar to rule the Jewish homeland and not whether or not all government is illegitimate; and considering that the demonic order is nowhere in view, either in this verse or in the entire chapter from which it comes; Ellul’s anarchist conclusions are simply gratuitous. Ellul here is arguing as if all political power is and only could be exercised after a Machiavellian model; as if all political measures were Draconian; and as if the only acceptable alternative to Machiavelli and Draco is anarchy–all of which are patently false. Although Jesus’ words clearly rule out any facile identification of the divine and the political, they do not rule out the political altogether or relegate it to the realm of the irremediably perverse. They are, quite to the contrary, an explicit sanction of government,

though not of all that governments have done. Christ’s words clearly indicate the possibility (and implicitly reveal the advisability) of loyalty to both God and government. In no way should this passage be construed as a vilification of all political power for all time and in all circumstances. Such assertions are simply the idiosyncratic contortions of Ellul’s bizarre dance upon the text. They are not the carefully ascertained teaching of the text itself; and they are not exegetical scholarship.
      When Jesus later declares that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), Ellul again finds what he believes is grist for his anarchist mill. These words, Ellul writes, teach that “apart from the Kingdom of God, any power exercised is evil” and “should be obliterated.” With these words, Ellul argues, “Jesus . . . launches a fundamental attack on power.” But Jesus, of course, has said or done absolutely nothing (here or elsewhere) so politically doctrinaire or irresponsible as that. In fact, Jesus tells Pilate something quite the opposite: “You would have no power over me,” Jesus said, “if it were not given you from above” (John 19:11). Pilate’s power, of course, was political. It was also far-reaching, including even the power to judge matters of life and death. We have it on the highest authority, furthermore, that Pilate’s power was given to him by God himself. In other words, the dominical utterance to which Ellul alludes has nothing at all to do with the establishment or endorsement of universal political anarchy or the iconoclastic overthrow of all political power. Those things can be found nowhere in Scripture, much less here in John’s gospel. They are the result only of Ellul’s egregious and misshapen interpretation.
      Ellul then dismisses out of hand what most exegetes would identify as the locus classicus of the New Testament’s teaching on government: Paul’s word in Romans 13 that we ought to submit ourselves to the governing authorities because, as rulers, they have been established by God himself as a force for good. This passage, says Ellul, is “much too celebrated.” He writes, “This text, it seems to me, should be reduced to its real meaning: rather than giving us the last word on the matter of political authority, it seeks to apply love in a context where Christians detested the authorities.” In spite of Ellul’s imaginative supposition, we have no evidence whatever that either Paul (who was imprisoned repeatedly by the authorities) or the Roman Christians to whom he wrote ever “detested the authorities.” Indeed, some of those to whom Paul addressed his admonition were themselves

quite possibly active agents in the government and part of the ruling authority, as a number of biblical considerations might lead us to believe. Detesting political authority is a characteristic of Ellulism, not of apostolic Christianity.
      In short, the anarchism that Ellul espouses, and with which he labels both Testaments and Christ himself, is not the political ideology of Scripture; it is the yield of Ellul’s own anarchic hermeneutic, a hermeneutic that refuses to submit itself to the precise verbal parameters established by the language of any given biblical text. If the Bible entails any sort of political orthodoxy, it is not anarchism.
      Because ideas have consequences, and because bad ideas have bad consequences, an anarchistic reading of Scripture is not without its untoward effects. Relying on exegesis of this sort, for example, enables one unabashedly to insist, as does Ellul, that “the state’s prosperity always implies the death of innocents,” and that “a person can exercise political power only if he worships the power of evil.” But by this logic, voting–the supreme act of power in any democratic republic–would be unspeakably wicked and ought to be resisted by all Christians as a point of true spirituality and moral responsibility. The same would apply (in most free nations) to paying taxes, military service, sending letters (and delivering them), pledging allegiance, testifying in court, serving on a jury, filing a lawsuit, or even purchasing and using a library card at a public library, all of which are exercises of, and participation in, political power. Furthermore, simply by saying publicly what he does, Ellul himself “worships the power of evil” because the exercise of free speech and public discourse are political acts of power, as the ancient Greeks well understood and as has been reemphasized in modern times by Leo Strauss and those who identify with Strauss’s school of political theorizing, among others. Furthermore, because publishing, preaching, teaching, and persuading are powerful political actions; because these avenues of expression are open to Ellul primarily because his government (and others) protect his freedom of speech, his academic freedom, and the freedom of the press; and because Ellul continues to practice those liberties and to value them highly; he must not say, as he does, that “political power never has any value in itself.”
      But here as else where, Ellul’s thought has been misdirected and imprecise. As his exaggerated language frequently indicates, his theological and political beliefs often are inadequately nuanced. For example, Ellul speaks of “the radical

incompatibility of the gospel and the state,” which, in light of the fact that he lives in a country that guarantees his right to believe as he chooses, and in light of the fact that so many European countries have Christian churches that spread the Gospel at home and abroad–churches that are sponsored by the state–is a grossly distorted exaggeration. Had he mentioned only the incompatibility of the Gospel and some states, his remark would have been more credible. As it is, however, one has a good deal of difficulty working up any confidence in Ellul’s theological and political judgments because of their habitually exaggerated verbal configuration.
      But faulty exegesis, internal inconsistency, and imprecise language are only part of the problem of Ellul’s anarchism; it is also eminently unrealistic. That is, rather than observing what human existence is really like and deducing, as Thomas Hobbes did in the seventeenth century, that life in a fallen world is typically nasty, brutish, and short; and rather than tying his political theorizings to that fundamental diagnostic fact; Ellul seeks to foist onto an already ruptured world the ineffective anarchic vision concocted in his own head, unchecked as it is by human reality or the biblical text. In other words, because it is not subject to the dictates of any external restraint, Ellul’s political theory, in effect, is epistemologically anarchistic.
      Put differently, Ellul has succumbed to what Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has characterized as the unfortunate disjunction between political ideas and human experience. When such disjunctions develop, she says, irresponsible political and economic theories proliferate. These theories, which she labels “the rationalist perversion,” “tend . . . to be abstract and unembarrassed by the need for empirical indicators of their major assumptions.” “Rationalist theories are speculative rather than empirical and historical; rationalist reforms seek to conform human behavior to oversimplified, unrealistic models.” Rationalist theoreticians ignore the fact that human institutions arise out of human behavior and that human behavior is notoriously intractable. This same ideological unperturbedness precisely describes Ellul, who is undaunted by the acknowledged unlikelihood, perhaps impossibility, of his anarchistic political vision.
      We must not become discouraged if our anarchist declaration fails to lead to an anarchist society, or if it does not overthrow society, destroying its whole framework. . . . In spite of everything, in spite of this human reality, we want to destroy power. This is the Christian hope in politics.

The Truth About Kinsey

      Washington, D.C., June 17, 1998: The following few briefing points relate to recent statements by Senators Trent Lott and Dick Armey citing the authority of the Bible to adjudicate homosexuality as a “sin”.  Lott and Armey were repudiated by White House press secretary Michael McCurry, whose authority was the “American Psychiatric Association” which over “two decades ago” declared homosexuality normal. “The subject is no longer a matter for conscience, but for science” said McCurry (The Washington Times, June 17, 1998, p.1, 16).
      IME’s president, Dr. Judith Riesman, in her newest book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences (1998) and in her paper “Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution,” (The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, pp. 21-28), documents how Kinsey’s fraudulent science was used to radically alter American sexual attitudes, laws and public policies on everything from rape and child custody to sodomy and homosexuality.  The following seven points briefly address Kinsey as the authority for the APA and “science” on homosexuality.  Full documentation is available upon request.  
      1) Kinsey’s data in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) was and continues to be the basis for massive legal and social change making homosexuality normal today.  Kinsey claimed to prove that 10% to 37% of the male population was homosexual for some period of their lives.  However, we now know that Kinsey’s“normal” male subjects included at minimum 86% male deviants; e.g., 1,400 sex offenders, plus thousands of prisoners, homosexuals, male prostitutes and roughly 1,888 boys sexually abused for Kinsey’s “data.”  Moreover, a Kinsey colleague officially revealed that Kinsey secretly purged three-fourths of his subjects.  His was a fraudulent study, mislabeled as “science” (Reisman, 1998,p.54).
      2) Writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality (1992) Dr. Charles Socarides reported the process by which the American Psychiatric Association Task Force removed homosexuality “from the category of aberrancy.”  The APA December 1973 homosexual ruling was political and grounded on Kinsey. Said Socarides, the APA:

rationale for removing homosexuality relied heavily on the work of Alfred Kinsey and his belief in the normality of homosexuality. . . . The Kinsey Report has had in several ways a severe and damaging delayed impact on our sexual mores, especially as they pertain to homosexuality (p.322).

      3) The small, elite hand-picked APA Task Force on Homosexuality included Kinsey Institute Director Paul Gebhard and Kinsey Institute advisor John Money and was strictly Kinseyan, said Socarides.  Money calls for legalizing all adult-child sex in The Journal of Paedophilia, (Spring 1991, pp.2-13) while Gebhard, co-author of Kinsey’s fraudulent research, was a sexual participant in the now exposed sex crimes carried out at the Kinsey Institute.  These crimes included the sex abuse of thousands of children for the Kinsey “data” and protecting a man sought by the police for the sex murder of a young girl (Reisman, 1998, p.  18)
      4) Recent evidence finds that Kinsey, while married and a father, engaged in criminal sexual conduct with many males.  Kinsey’s sexual “partners” included his two student co-authors, Pomeroy and Martin.  Kinsey was sexually active with his research staff during his “research” on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.  Kinsey engaged in crimes of homosexual adultery, criminal sexual sadism and criminal pornography production, that he was a masturbatory addict and masochist who, it appears, died as a result of complications from a disease sustained from long-term sexual self abuse. (National Review, October 13, 1997, p. 69-70; Reisman, 1998, Chp. 2-4, 7)
      5)The recent 50-year jubilee re-release by Indiana University Press and Kinsey Institute of Kinsey’s books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) reconfirms IU’s on-going institutional promotion of the Kinsey Institute and the Kinsey data.  This is despite proof of science fraud, sex crimes and unconscionable mass child sex abuse conducted under the auspices and protections provided by Indiana University.
      6) The APA cited no other normative American scientific sex data and now Kinsey is revealed to be a fraud.  If McCurry seeks to defend homosexuality as normal and to renounce Biblical laws which assert that legitimizing “fornication,”

“adultery” and “homosexuality” leads to massive social disorder, disease and chaos, then McCurry must defend the APA use of Kinsey’s “scientific” data.  Kinsey’s fraud is the source authority for both the APA and McCurry’s regarding homosexuality as ‘normal’ whether he knows it or not. 
      7) Will McCurry also defend pedophilia as normal?  Because the same Kinsey ‘science’ which found homosexuality as normal includes “scientific” data from pedophiles who sexually abused infants as young as 2 months of age for 24-hour orgasm experiments seen as Tables 30-34 in the Kinsey Reports.
      Conclusion: McCurry’s stand with the “science” which made homosexuality normal also stands him with the same Kinsey science which claimed that the “convulsions,” “weeping”

“hysterical tears (especially among the younger children)” and “striking the partner, “ were signs of “orgasm” in male infants who were too young to speak.  If McCurry cites the APA decision that the ‘science’ says homosexuality is normal, then McCurry must also cite Kinsey’s other sex “findings,” including Kinsey’s claim that his screaming little subjects “derived definite pleasure from “their rapes and molestation.
      The above summarizes the “science” and the APA upon which McCurry’s argument for homosexual normality rests.  (For full documentation see, J. A. Reisman, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, The Institute For Media Education, Arlington, VA, 1998.)

q    “When I talk about the Christian Coalition, I’m not talking about all of the members of the Christian Coalition.  I am a Christian.  I am talking about the leadership that sets the agenda, creates the message and builds these very sophisticated campaigns. . . .
        I’m talking about the leadership.  I’m not talking about the people who hear a message that sounds good and go along.  They don’t care about children that don’t look like them.  They don’t care about children that are not white, middle-class Christians.  As far as they’re concerned, others can be eliminated.”
        Jane Fonda, quoted in The Washington Times, June 25, 1998; A 2

q “The past year has seen a national campaign to turn a man generally and deservedly forgotten into an African American hero.  According to his advocates the singer Paul Robeson, who would have turned 100 this year, deserves to join the ranks of Martin Luther King Jr. and W.E.B. Dubois as the subject of a U.S. postage Stamp. . . .
        “The pro-Robeson campaign represents the latest attempt to sell the American people a falsified, anti-anti-Communist, upside-down version of their history. . . .         “Robeson received the Stalin Prize the year the dictator died, and signed a eulogy expressing a grief in which Robeson found himself completely bereft of his vaunted eloquence. ‘Slava—slava—Stalin, Glory to Stalin,’ he babbled.  ‘Forever will his name be honored and beloved in all lands.’
      “The suggestion that Robeson betrayed his country would provoke howls of rage today.  American intellectuals observe a double standard: Fascist enemies of democracy . . . were criminals; but Communists were democracy’s best friends. . .              “The man has no more business on a U.S. postage stamp than Benedict Arnold or John Wilkes Booth.”
        Stephen Schwartz, The Washington Times, June 24, 1998; A 2

q         “Beijing does not practice free trade; it conducts “strategic trade” to strengthen itself for the coming clash.  In China there is no distinction between the private and the state.  Thousands of Chinese companies — from hotels to toy factories— are run by the People’s Liberation Army.  The PLA exploits its unrestricted access to the huge U.S. market to earn hard currency for the aggrandizement of state power.  China’s civilian sector buys what strategic interests dictate, like those 46 supercomputers recently sold by the United States, the precise whereabouts of which we cannot confirm.
        U.S. companies are lured into China by offers of access to the “world’s greatest market” and a low-wage labor force.  Once there, the U.S. firms find that access to China’s consumers is restricted and the hidden price of low-wage Chinese labor is mandatory transfer of technology to Chinese “partners,” who copy the American machines and begin replicating our factories.”
        Patrick Buchanan, The Washington Times, May 27, 1998; A 15

q “The Georgian government is convinced that Russian Foreign Minister Yevgini Primakov personally ordered the assassination attempt of Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze.  ‘Every bit of evidence we have,’ a Georgian official tells SI, ‘points directly to a highly sophisticated effort organized by the Russian KGB under the direction of its former director Primakov.  As a Stalinist apparatchik and Russia’s premier imperialist, Primakov is determined that Russia control all access to Caspian oil.  So he will use any means to prevent Azerbaijan and Georgia from exporting Caspian oil directly, bypassing Russia.  This includes sponsoring secessionism in the Abkhazia and Ossetia regions of Georgia, and NagornoKarabagh in Azerbaijan; promoting Robert Kocharian as leader of Armenia and encouraging him to militarily attack Azerbaijan; and now, trying to kill our president as well.’  The official concluded that ‘during the Soviet days, the Russians used Marxist ideology to justify their empire—today, we are back to the pure naked Russian imperialism of old.’” Strategic Investment, March 18, 1998, p. 3

q    On May 28, President Clinton issued a “FURTHER AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 11478, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” asserting that: 
        “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and in order to provide for a uniform policy for the Federal Government to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 11478, as amended, is further amended as follows:
        “Section 1.  The first sentence of section 1 is amended by substituting ‘age, or sexual orientation’ for ‘or age’.
        “Section 2.  The second sentence of section 1 is amended by striking the period and adding at the end of the sentence”, to the extent permitted by law.’.”
        This action by President Clinton is an assault on the religious liberties of millions of Bible-believing Americans who accept God’s admonition that homosexual practices are an abomination.  It is also an affront to those who oppose discrimination on the basis of inherited characteristics such as race, putting genetic attributes on a par with corrupt conduct.
        We not only have a right but a duty to discriminate against conduct which is unlawful in the sight of God.
        The Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin
HPISB#599—-, June 15, 1998;p 1