"I can't even mail a letter!" - Abortion clinic "buffer zone" arrest

Above is a "blast from the past" -- a video of my friend, Graham Dugas, being arrested for violating an abortion clinic "buffer zone." The irony of this is that I owned the house across the street. Graham was my roommate and our mailbox was located withing the 36-foot buffer zone.

The full article on this written by Meredith Raney is here:

http://forerunner.com/ccbc/X0019_Three_abortion_docto.html

Before the abortion clinic closed for good in 2000, there was much protest activity on the public property around the Aware Woman Center for Choice in Melbourne, Florida.

In 1993, Judge McGregor issued an injunction against three organizations and six individuals and all persons "acting in concert" with them. This injunction requires these respondents to stay outside of a 36 foot buffer zone created on public property.

* In 1993, 104 people, none of them named on the injunction, were convicted of violating this injunction. These trials were before a judge who was brought out of retirement from north Florida just for these trials. He was not accountable to the citizens of Brevard county. Also, no jury trial was allowed. All 104 defendants believe that they were unjustly convicted. They were on public property where they had every right to be as members of the public. No judge had ever told them to stay out of the buffer zone.

* In the Madsen case in June of 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 36-foot buffer zone part of the injunction as it applies to named parties. Since no non-parties were plaintiffs in the case, no ruling was made about the "in concert" clause.

* In the Alf case in the fall of 1995, the U.S. Supreme court refused to hear the case of the 104 non-parties even though it had basically invited this case in the opinion written in the Madsen case. The Supreme Court has refused to give a clear, definitive ruling on the "in concert" part of this injunction.

* After June 1994, there were over 20 injunction violation charges made by the Melbourne Police Department. Not one of these cases was brought to trial. They were all dismissed.

At some point, arrest with the knowledge that there will be no prosecution becomes harassment. Being dragged off to jail, having to post bond, and then having to show up for as many as nine court dates over a period of nine months, as in one defendant's case, just to see the charges dropped is harassment. This is unconstitutional. The sixth amendment to our Constitution guarantees that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial and to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

After two years of court battles and over 20 individual arrests, pro-lifers were able to take back the buffer zone. Graham Dugas, who lives across the street from the Aware Woman Abortuary and its infamous 36-foot buffer zone, took the buffer zone back on Saturday, May 11, 1996. On the previous Thursday, Dugas had successfully defended himself in Court on a buffer zone violation charge. On May 11, he went back into the zone using the same props with the court evidence tags still attached. He was carrying a pro-life sign and the transmitting half of a baby monitor being used as a disposable remote microphone to pick up audio for the video camera when he was previously arrested. He was immediately warned again at which time he left the buffer zone and asked to speak to a supervisor. A lieutenant came out and after some discussion, withdrew the warning. Dugas then went back into the buffer zone and waved everyone over.

About 30 people walked, prayed and picketed in the buffer zone freely for the first time in three years.

Sidewalk counseling took place on the sidewalk again for the first time in almost two years. When Christians pray and counsel women from sidewalks in front of abortion clinics more women are dissuaded from having their babies aborted than when people are not allowed to come within these unconstitutional "buffer zones."

- Meredith Raney

A Revival Account: Asbury College 1970

Order the video at: http://forerunner.com/asbury/asbury.html

"The 1970 revival at Asbury College will go down n history as one of the greatest supernatural events of the last half of the 20th century. Millions of people across the United States and the world were impacted by it. This simple video odes a wonderful job of conveying something of the outpouring's heart and power. Everyone we have ever shown this to have an immediate impartation of faith for revival and the power of prayer. What God did once at this campus, we believe He will do again on every campus where a group of students will open their hearts to Him."

- Bob and Rose Weiner, Weiner Ministries International

What is true Revival and Spiritual Awakening?

Discover the answer in this eyewitness account by Dennis Kinlaw, President of Asbury College, Wilmore, Kentucky, who recounts the story of a visitation of the Holy Spirit in 1970. If you are a student who longs to see a spiritual awakening at your school, you must see this video!

This is the presentation that has continued to spark the flames of Revival in the hearts of people around the world. Contains eyewitness footage from the Revival at Asbury College in 1970 in Wilmore, Kentucky. Certain to challenge you to greater holiness and a deeper commitment to full-scale revival. Original news and private footage has been included.

WILMORE, Kentucky -- One morning in 1970, without warning, all heaven broke loose during Asbury College's 10 a.m. chapel service.

"When you walked into the back of Hughes Auditorium ... there was a kind of an aura, kind of a glow about the chapel," said Dr. David Hunt, a Louisville physician who was then a student.

"I always have been reminded of the verse 'Take off your shoes, for you are standing on holy ground.' You just walked in and sensed that God had indeed sent His Spirit."

The service, a routine meeting, was scheduled for 50 minutes. Instead, it lasted 185 hours non-stop, 24 hours a day. Intermittently, it continued for weeks. Ultimately, it spread across the United States and into foreign countries. Some say it is being felt even today.

This year marks the 21st anniversary of the landmark 1970 Asbury College revival, an unplanned, unled display of fervor that has been compared to the Great Awakenings of 1740 and 1800. This year is also the 41st anniversary of a strikingly similar revival Asbury experienced in 1950.

A bigger outbreak -- a global revival, in fact -- will begin soon, says David McKenna, president of adjacent Asbury Theological Seminary, in his new book, The Coming Great Awakening.

The revival might not start at Asbury, but it probably will begin on campuses, says McKenna, a noted author. He travels to many colleges and says, "I see the signs wherever I go."

Those signs include a generation of students wounded by family breakdowns and searching for spiritual fulfillment. Much of the coming revival will be a delayed reaction, McKenna thinks, to what happened at Asbury College 20 years ago.

Read the rest at:

http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0585_Asbury_Revival_1970.html

My response to a cynic on the chronology of Jesus' life

John Armstrong -- Jesus' doubter, cynic and Deist -- posted a video response to The Real Jesus. Above is his video and here is my written response to him. I may do a video response if I have time.

I've written on most of the points you bring up in your video on my blog and on my YouTube V-logs. I think maybe that's why you linked to my v-log in the first place.

I don't see any new objections here.

That being said, biblical chronology is interesting to me and I've come to the conclusion in the past two years that it's a key issue in solving a lot of theological debates within the church as well as apologetic battles with skeptics and seekers.

I am a partial preterist, so I think that the 70 A.D. mark is important to help Christians understand not only the book of Revelation and the Mount Olivet Discourse, but also why the NT was written when it was written and why these dates are non-negotiable.

I presuppose that the NT is correct. I admit my bias. I also reason backward in time from the 70 A.D. mark to get certain dates.

Here is one time marker for example: The Mount Olivet Discourse can't be correct unless it was given in or after 30 A.D. "This generation shall not pass away until all these things shall take place" -- speaking of the destruction of the Temple.

A Hebrew generation is 40 years, so that gives the EARLIEST year for the Mount Olivet Discourse and the crucifixion which took place that same time.

30 A.D. plus 40 years = 70 A.D.

Since Jews never entered the rabbinical ministry before their 30th year (which is actually age 29 in Hebrew reckoning) then Jesus entered the ministry at age 29 or 30. If three Passovers are recorded in the Gospels, then that would give a date of 26 or 27 A.D. when Jesus reached age 30.

So when was Jesus born?

If you subtract 30 from 27 A.D. The birth of Jesus occurred around 4 B.C.

John the Baptist was six months older than Jesus (Luke 1:36). He entered the ministry in the days of Pontius Pilate (26 A.D; Luke 3:1).

Here I think Luke is giving really specific dates. Jesus could not have been younger than 33-years-old in 30 A.D. and John the Baptist could not have entered the ministry prior to 26 A.D.

John the Baptist was conceived in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5; 2:1). Here, Luke refers to King Herod the Great of Judea and NOT Herod Antipas, who he later names as Herod Tetrarch of Galilee (Luke 3:1).

Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.

So from this much alone, Luke's account matches Matthew's. John the Baptist was born in 5 B.C. (Luke 1:5; 2:1) and Jesus was born no later than 4 B.C. during the last months of the reign of Herod (Matthew 2:1).

This chronology matches other dates such as the beginning of Pilate's administration coinciding with John the Baptist's ministry (26 A.D.) and the administration of Herod's sons (Luke 3:1).

Now let's deal with Quirinius.

Your entire argument rests on the idea that Quirinius had NO ADMINISTRATION WHATSOEVER over Syria during Herod the Great's reign. You don't prove that he did NOT. You say you have contrary evidence, but you do NOT cite it.

However, I have in Justin at least one historical record to corroborate this.

Justin, Apology, Chapt 34: "And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: 'And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people.' Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea."

Quirinius was a ruler in the eastern Roman Empire from the time of 14 B.C. to 12 A.D. Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus, Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31). Justin's "First Apology" indicaties that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (Quintilius Varus) over Judea or at least placed in charge of the census in Judea.

So Quirinius is hardly a problem if you believe Justin. He was not the "governor" of Syria, but simply a "procurator" in both Judea and Syria. In fact, the phrase "hegemoneuontos tes Syrias Kyreniou" (Luke 2:2) can be taken to mean ANY kind of ruler. The word "hegemonoi" in Greek can mean a variety of titles meaning ruler, governor, procurator, authority, etc.

For instance, Pilate is also called a "hegemonoi," in the New Testament, but Herod of Judea (another of Herod the Great's son) was the Tetrarch at the time of the crucifixion. Pilate was a prefect or a procurator, yet he had greater authority than Herod of Judea. It's no problem since "hegemonoi" is translated variously as governor, procurator, prefect, in the New Testament.

Furthermore, Roman rulers often held more than one title in a province and sometimes held titles over several provinces.

Justin records that Quirinius was a "procurator of Judea." Other histories record that this would have been while Varus and Saturnius served as governors.

Why would Luke then call him "governor of Syria" if he were simply a regional procurator? Why does he not name Varus or Saturnius? There is no contradiction here. He could have had MORE AUTHORITY than Varus or Saturnius, just as Pilate had more authority than Herod.

It's also interesting that Justin didn't simply copy Luke and call him "governor of Syria" -- he calls him "procurator of Judea." Sometimes historical accounts that don't match exactly just give MORE information not necessarily contradictory information. And more importantly, whether he was right or wrong, Justin obviously used another source than Luke -- one that puts Quirinius in the right place at the right time.

Tertullian also does the same thing in his fourth book Against All Heresies: "But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ."

Note that Tertullian mentions Saturnius, and doesn't simply copy Luke. He can't be making it up because he states emphatically that proof of the census existed.

So if we try to reconcile the various sources, we have information that Jesus was born when Herod was governor of Judea, Saturnius had been governor of Syria and a ruler of Judea, and Varus had been governor of Syria, and Quirinus was procurator of both Syria and Judea.

If all the secular dates are correct that puts Jesus' birth in an 18 month window from late 6 B.C. to early 4 B.C.

A lot of these questions about overlapping administrations are understood better if you see a map of Palestine and realize how small the area is. We are talking about an area 100 miles in length to travel from Judea, through Samaria, Galilee, Iturea, then to Syria and Abilene. Then Asia Minor begins about 200 miles north of that area.

As you stated correctly, Quirinius was in Asia Minor overseeing campaigns against the Homonadensians from 5 to 3 B.C. This campaign was waged in Cilicia in the southeastern part of Asia Minor. He would have been on the border of Syria. So it's possible to place him in Syria sometime from 6 to 4 B.C. We know he was at the most 100 to 200 miles away.

I've given you a plausible time-line. But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and that Tacitus contradicts Luke about Quirinius. At the very most, all you've proven is that Tacitus and Luke disagree and so at last one of them is wrong. You must admit that secular historians often make mistakes!

You raise several other points too, but I think those are much weaker and fairly easy to refute. These concern the arrangement of materials in the Gospels but it is well know that Matthew and John don't always arrange their materials chronologically, but are concerned with thematic arrangement. A good harmony of the Gospels is needed. I can point you to one if you want.

I think if the discussion were to be continued it ought to be on a forum such as TheologyWeb, or as a forum on our websites.

That being said, we are covering ground that has been covered thousands of times before.

Do you want to talk about the census next?

Abortion Clinic 911 Calls - Baby Rowan (Revisited)

Last year, I posted this video on YouTube.

It contains information and images from the Baby Rowan story posted in various places on the Internet and the original 911 emergency call made when a baby was born alive in an Orlando, Florida abortion clinic and left to die by the clinic workers.

Just Google "Baby Rowan abortion" and you find articles everywhere from WorldNet Daily to World Magazine and Charisma Magazine. One person told me that after viewing the video, they thought how different it is from all the articles because "it puts you there."

Yes, I agree. And guess what? A film has been made on Baby Rowan called 22 Weeks that should be out sometime in 2008.

http://www.22weeksthemovie.com

The producer/director of the movie contacted us and wanted to get some information and the 911 call featured in the video. The movie is produced by Forerunner Films (no relation to Forerunner.com) and you can watch a trailer if you go to the Facebook link from their website.

One of the two trailers from 22 Weeks is on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8RK312hKyA

It is far more intense and grisly than the video I made, so be forewarned.

With a film coming out and the continued Internet presence of Baby Rowan's story, this is the time to reenergize our efforts to publicize the horror of the Baby Rowan homicide.

I for one am elated that this local story continues to be a big issue in the national pro-life community.

I think the YouTube 911 Call video is valuable because it shows with the recording, autopsy photos, reports, and newspaper accounts, that this is really a true story. Many people hearing about Bay Rowan through the film, 22 Weeks, aren't going to believe it.

Our goal as pro-life activists, should be to further expose James Pendergraft and to alert people to the fact that babies are born alive and left to die each week in America. It's a daily occurrence in many countries of the world. It's a federal crime -- homicide in our country -- but in this one instance where it is well-documented to have happened, there has been no investigation.

Follow the links. Support the 22 Weeks movie. Let other people know and let me know what you think.

Can you make good money on the YouTube/Adsense Partnership program?

Here's an interesting question posed by a YouTube user named Kevin:

Hi Jay,

I saw that you are a member partner on YouTube. I am a Bible teacher at Christian High School and I was thinking about becoming a partner on YouTube to make some extra money. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of compensation does Google//YouTube provide to you for that? Youtube is kind of vague as far as the compensation is concerned.

God bless your ministry!

I am supposed to not reveal my earnings as part of my YouTube contract. I will tell you this: I have 126 videos posted on YouTube and about 30,000 views per month for all videos. That's based on 511,706 views since November of 2005. My goal is to increase this to 100,000 per month.

Google does not as of yet post detailed data on YouTube Adsense as they do for their other types of ads. So statistically speaking I am in the dark about impressions versus earnings.

But I can estimate based on views.

I also have a website of about 15,000 pages with Adsense. I make most of my Adsense money here at this site.

My current page views per month for this website are at about 250,000. So if you compare that with the 30,000 YouTube views per month it explains why I make a little more than ten percent of my total revenue from YouTube. The ratio is about even.

So this is to be expected even though I had hoped to do better with YouTube. I look at it as just another stream of revenue. Each video is like adding another page to my website -- just a lot more work! I started on YouTube because I wanted an audience and thought I could drive more people to my site. I also was glad to find that this was free server space on which to park an unlimited amount of video which takes up a lot of server memory even in flash format. I started by posting videos and then embedding them in my blog and other places on my website.

Then the YouTube/Adsense partnership program came two years later. I just started receiving money from this a few months ago.

However, I believe it is a good idea for the future especially if you own copyrights to video or have permission to use them. Eventually we will see a shift toward Internet based TV. Google and YouTube are positioning themselves to be the brokers of both the advertising and the medium.

Here's why it's good to start with the partnership program now:

As you know, many of the videos on YouTube are illegal copyright violations. As the ad money starts to surge, there will be a strong push by the copyright owners to ban users who post illegal videos. Right now it is an annoyance, but then it will be thought of as stealing ad revenue. I think in fact that the Adsense strategy is a way to deal with the inevitable. There is big money in ad revenue on-line and YouTube wants to attract the major television producers as well as small time producers of video to their site. Eventually the illegal stuff will be weeded out. And consequently there will be a smaller offering of videos to watch. The simple rule of supply and demand spells an increase of income for the legal users.