"Dignity" Law & Order episode infuriates pro-aborts, can be watched on iTunes

What's going on? Pro-abortion advocates are ripping ABC-TV (yes, that ABC!) for being unbalanced on the abortion issue.

They've thrown down the gauntlet: "Cry 'God for Barry, pro-choice America and St. George!'"

(As they laud George Tiller, the baby killer, whom the L&A episode thinly veils in its depiction of the trial of an assassin who gunned down a late-term abortionist in a church.)

What they don't get is that over 92 percent of Americans actually do think that killing viable children and infants born-alive is murder. And even if they do not, no one wants to rush out to battle in the name of "abortion rights" to endorse what almost everyone knows is infanticide. Not too many people are actually that arrogant.

I haven't seen the episode, but apparently it gives a nod to the Personhood of the fetus as "deserving of another look," so maybe something good is happening?

If you have an iTunes account, the whole episode can be watched there. If not, you can download the application. It's easy.

Why the Florida Catholic Bishops are wrong to oppose the pro-life Personhood Amendment

It is our opinion, and that of the legal experts with whom we have consulted, that passage of this amendment would not achieve the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.

If such an amendment were to pass, a feat more difficult in our state due to the requirement to achieve support by 60% of voters, we are convinced that a federal district court would strike it down based on Roe. This decision would undoubtedly be affirmed by an appellate court, and the case would either not be granted further review by today’s U.S. Supreme Court, or worse, lead to a reaffirmation of Roe. The unintended effect would very likely jeopardize current protections in state law and cause a loss of momentum in the ultimate goal of establishing full legal protection of the unborn from the moment of conception.

- The Catholic Bishops of Florida

In a nutshell: Based on the idea that the Personhood Amendment would cause the Supreme Court to rule on Roe v. Wade, no one should support this. Instead we should focus on incremental measures.

This is wrong for several reasons.

Yes, it is the culture that changes the law, but it is meaningless to talk about changing the culture unless we are actively involved in changing the beliefs, values and laws that govern us as individuals. We must do this through constant discussion, debate and education. Advocating for a Personhood Amendment is an excellent way to do this.

Furthermore, incremental measures may be seen to be counterproductive in our attemp. Every law that places a restriction on abortion is in fact a legal precedent that affirms Roe v. Wade. Even if Roe were struck down tomorrow, these incremental measures would stand even in states that had a ban or restriction on abortion prior to Roe.

"You must have parental consent, a five day waiting period, and an ultra-sound, then you have the legal right to kill your baby!"

That is the standard presented by the Catholic bishops of Florida at this time. This is no way to build a culture of life. We cannot affirm the right to life by sanctioning legal child murder only in some circumstances. The way to affirm a culture of life is to legally define the personhood of a human being from the beginning of biological development.

It is an incremental step in that regard.

We can legally define "the beginning of biological development" as constituting a human life, a legal "person" and a "natural person." That will change the culture.

To get 60 percent of the voters to agree to this, first we must ask eight percent to think about it and agree with their signatures that such an amendment is needed. Even if we fail to get the signatures needed, we are actively engaging in evangelism, getting the hearts and minds of people lined up with truth. People who have never evangelized before will lead people to Christ through their petitioning. That will change the culture.

When we get the amendment on the ballot, there will be a huge fight. A debate over abortion and when life begins has never occurred in our culture at large. Legalized abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregancy was enforced from the top down in most states by a Supreme Court decision. Even in states that had legal abortion, there were restrictions that were knocked down by Roe and Doe v. Bolton. For the first time in 37 years, we will be calling on the free will of the people to decide for themselves. That will change the culture.

If the measure fails in Florida, we will keep trying in other states until one passes. Within 24 hours there will be a legal injunction by a higher court that calls on the state to not enforce laws regulating or banning abortion. At that point, the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case. Even if we lose, we win. It will establish a clear cut division between the will of the courts and the will of the people. That will change the culture.

Then we will seek to pass such amendments and resolutions in other states. That will change the culture.

We will eventually get such an intitative passed in 34 of the so-called "red states" -- enough for a United States Constitutional Amendment that will protect the life of a person from the beginning of biological development. Roe will be moot. Now longer will it be the fiat "law of the land" enforced by judicial tyranny. It will only apply to Roe and Wade. And I hear Jane Roe is now pro-life.

We can change the culture, but it must come from the will of the people, not through the courts. It must come through the states.

Key facts

1. Through 2008, there were 24 voter petition initiatives on the Florida ballot since the process began in 1978 (in addition to legislative initiatives).

2. Of those 24, 20 were approved by voters.

3. Florida voters have approved a higher percentage of their statewide ballot measures than voters in any other state.

This position paper is not copyrighted and may be forwarded and distributed to anyone without prior permission.

- Jay Rogers
http://forerunner.com/

Why we should create cognitive dissonance on the “pro-life / pro-choice” issue

I found the following poll interesting because as I am out collecting petitions for Florida's pro-life Personhood Amendment, I find that many people are confused about the term “pro-life.”

More than 25 percent of people who say they are “pro-choice” on abortion really take a “pro-life” position against most abortions.

The Marist College Institute of Public Opinion conducted a survey between September 24 and October 3, 2008.

Of the “pro-life” group

• 13 percent say abortion should never be permitted.
• 15 percent say abortions should only be allowed to save the life of the mother.
• 32 percent say abortions should be allowed in that rare case and when the mother is a victim of rape or incest.

A full 60 percent of Americans say abortions should never be allowed or only in rare circumstances, such as danger to the life of the mother, rape and incest, that constitute less than two percent of all abortions nationwide.

Of the “pro-choice” group

• 24 percent said abortion should be allowed only in the first trimester.
• 8 percent believed abortions should be allowed any time during the first 6 months of pregnancy.
• 8 percent agreed that abortions should be allowed any time during pregnancy for any reason.

Just 40 percent took one of these three pro-abortion positions.

A confusion of labels

Even though the survey found 60 percent of respondents took a pro-life position against all or most abortions, 50 percent of Americans called themselves “pro-choice” while only 44 percent said they were pro-life.

Of the so-called “pro-choice” group

• 5 percent of people who self-identified as “pro-choice” said abortions should never be permitted.
• 3 percent said only to save the life of the mother.
• 20 percent said only in cases of the life of the mother, rape or incest.

In other words, 28 percent of Americans who call themselves “pro-choice” actually oppose 98 percent of all abortions.

More cognitive dissonance among “pro-choice” advocates

• 71 percent said they favored more abortion limits.
• 15 percent of those describing themselves as “pro-choice” favored unrestricted abortion throughout a pregnancy.

- LifeNews.com


Commentary by Jay Rogers

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is that mental or emotional internal conflict caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. It is believed by some to be a possible source of mental illness. In the field of Christian apologetics, cognitive dissonance can be used by the evangelist to call for the “renewing of the mind” (Romans 12:2). Those hearing the Gospel must choose between one of two alternate understandings of reality or worldviews. Even as Christians, our thought patterns often conform to the pattern of this world. To remain torn between two worlds is the state of a sick mind and a suffering heart. The more we hear the Gospel preached, the more we must align ourselves with either the kingdom of darkness or the kingdom of light. The more we align our thinking with the Word of God, the more we move from doubt and unbelief to positive faith.

One of the most baffling phenomena in my experience as a pro-life activist consists of the various smokescreens surrounding the abortion issue. Two of the greatest misconceptions are the following:

1. That abortion is needed for cases of rape and incest.

2. That abortion is restricted in some way beyond the first trimester.

This was essentially the language of Roe v. Wade when it was enforced upon the American people in all 50 states. The pro-abortion advocates won the legal battle and then proceeded to wage a public relations propaganda war surrounding the so-called “exceptions.” But in fact, Roe’s companion decision Doe v. Bolton allowed abortion for any reason through all nine months. The irony is that vast majority of “pro-choice” and “pro-life” Americans are completely unaware of this.

This is one reason why I am convinced that the national campaign to pass Personhood Amendments to the constitutions of 34 or more states is the right language and the right strategy at the right time. The fact is that America has never had a national dialog on the ethics of abortion either before or since Roe v. Wade. By pressing for ballot initiatives that would enact the anti-thesis of abortion “rights,” we are conducting this needed debate. The “mushy middle” will no longer be able to ignore the facts.

As we push for these legislative and ballot initiatives to enact Personhood Amendments, we are simultaneously challenging those who hold to “only the exceptions” as to why they really believe abortion ought to be illegal in 98 percent of all current cases. In other words, why in fact should abortion be restricted for the most common excuse of convenience or economic situations? If abortion is morally objectionable because it is the killing of an unborn human person, then one must grapple with the issue of allowing killing in “only certain circumstances.” We need to create cognitive dissonance in the minds of these people.

What most pro-life advocates don’t realize is that it is possible to drive people away from a pro-abortion view simply by asking questions. No argument or debate is needed. All we need to do is offer an antithesis -- that is, to expose an accepted contradiction -- and seek to create as much cognitive dissonance as possible. Here are some questions to ask those caught in the mushy middle.

• Why would we ever allow the killing of an unborn child who is the product of rape or incest, but not call for capital punishment in cases of battery-rape and pedophilia?
• If abortion is wrong after the first trimester, then why is it wrong?
• If abortion after the first trimester is wrong because it is the killing of a human person, then what about the child at two months or one month? When does this developing human life become a “person”?
• When is it ever morally acceptable to kill a person? Why? Do any of these reasons include killing an innocent person?
  
• Does abortion “to save the life of the mother” include first making every effort medically available to save the life of both the mother and the unborn child? -- If so, why is this called an “abortion”?

By asking such pointed questions –- many more can be formulated -- we are pressing our advantage simply because as William Cullen Bryant once wrote, “Truth crushed to earth will rise again.”

If we continue to ask for truthful answers to these questions, we will win. In fact, we will find that we have already won, but most are just unaware of the victory. Due to their cognitive dissonance, they are unable to act accordingly.

By confronting the inevitable conclusions, those “pro-choice” advocates who advocate killing in only two percent of all cases will be forced to come into the light and admit that they would allow child murder. If they can live with this cognitive dissonance, then so be it. But I am convinced that the darkness cannot hide from the light.

This position paper is not copyrighted and the words and ideas it contains may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission.

Personhood: The Right Language and the Correct Strategy at the Right Time

In 1972, when Chief Justice Warren Burger appointed Harry Blackmun to write the majority opinion on Roe v. Wade it was at first rejected. Blackmun at first argued that a woman had a right to do whatever she pleased with her own body. This argument was rejected by Burger because it did not apply to drugs, public nudity, suicide attempts, and so on. It was too unsophisticated an argument for such a difficult case. Blackmun filed for a reargument and waited for Nixon to fill two vacancies on the nine member court (Roe was originally decided with seven). In October, the court heard rearguments with new appointees Powell and Rehnquist. This time Justice Stewart asked Sarah Weddington if it was critical to her case to say that the 14th amendment did not protect the fetus as a "person."

He asked: "If it were established that the fetus is a person, within the protection of the 14th amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?"

"I would have a very difficult case," Weddington said.

Robert Flowers, representing the defense, asked, "Is the life of this unborn fetus paramount over the woman's right to determine whether or not she shall bear a child? This court has been diligent in protecting the rights of minorities, and, gentleman, we say hat it is a minority, a silent minority, the true silent minority. Who is speaking for these children?"

Weddington responded that her case was not to advocate abortion. It was to advocate that the decision was within the purview of the woman and her doctor and not the state. This has been the pro-choice argument all along -- that "choice" is protected by a constitutional right to privacy. Without getting into all the arguments over whether such a "right to privacy" can be established in the United States Constitution (and I think it cannot) let's suffice it to say that most Americans are sympathetic to this idea. They are not, however, sympathetic to abortion on demand through all nine months for any reason.

To make a long story short, Blackmun compromised and decided that late term abortion was problematic, but first trimester abortion and up to the time of viability could be protected in certain situations (rape, incest) under the "right to privacy." The decision said that the states still had a compelling interest to regulate abortion after the time of viability. In effect, it recognized the Pershonhood of the fetus after viability.

Blackmun stated that "... it must be stressed that the court does not hold that the Constitution [provides] abortion on demand."

In fact, he wrote in the decision, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

It's ironic that pro-choice advocates have used this to argue that we cannot know ever when life begins "because of the wide range of beliefs on this sensitive issue." But this postmodernist statement leaves open the possibility that we cannot ever make moral judgments about anything. If the vast majority of Americans see it as self-evident that killing a baby in the womb for the sake of convenience is murder, then we can legislate this moral truth into civil law.

The vast majority of Americans believe that the baby is fully human at viability. Yet we have abortion on demand through all nine months. A sizeable majority in at least 34 states (enough to enact a Constitutional Amendment) believes that life begins at conception or sometime in the first six weeks (the time when virtually no elective abortions are performed). Yet we have abortion on demand through all nine months for any reason.

"Personhood" is therefore the right language.

What happened after Roe.

Roe v. Wade still allowed states to restrict abortion. Doe v. Bolton then extended the right to privacy throughout all nine months. It swept away any notion of Personhood overriding the right to choose. Here it is important to understand the long term strategy. Even if a state-by-state Personhood Amendment fails to overturn Roe, it could result in returning the states to a pre-Doe scenario which might eliminate the 95 to 98 percent of abortions, which are provided on demand for any reason.

The Supreme Court fiat law had the effect of liberalizing abortion even in the few states that already had the most liberal abortion laws. Even the pro-choice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written that the Court "went on to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law in force.... the Roe decision left virtually no state with laws fully conforming to the Court's delineation of abortion regulation still permissible. Around that extraordinary decision, a well organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied."

It's interesting to note that even one of the most outspoken pro-choice Supreme Court Justices sympathizes with the thinking of the pro-life movement due to the top-down comprehensive enforcement of a policy that she agrees with. It is not impossible that even some of the "liberal activist" justices would side with the idea that the states should decide the issue for themselves. In fact, it would be even more difficult for our pro-abortion opponents to argue that this is a "Republican regime" instituted decision if even one Democrat-appointed Justice recognized the constitutionality of the Amendment -- by virtue of the fact that it was decided by the people of one of the 50 states.

"Personhood" is therefore the right language and the correct strategy.

The Supreme Court is not the only avenue through which to overturn the effect of Roe.

Here's a truly radical idea. Let a majority of the voters or state legislators in 34 states decide when the life of a person begins. In the current climate of distrust and creeping federal tyranny, this strategy to go back to the root of our democratic process -- the will of the people -- is well-timed. Still it might seem to some on the surface a random, quixotic campaign to go after the difficult liberal states such as California and Colorado. Admittedly it is a Herculean task to collect 700,000 or more signatures in the huge state of Florida. But in doing so, we are pressing the antithesis. We are trying to raise the bar, so to speak, in the most difficult states so that when we have our first victory in a state like Mississippi, it will cause a tidal wave of support in more conservative states where it will pass more easily.

All that is needed is a "yes" vote in 34 state legislatures to enact a Personhood Amendment to the United States Constitution. Even if this is struck down in one state by the Supreme Court, they can't resist the two-third majority clause in the Constitution itself.

"Personhood" is therefore the right language and the correct strategy at the right time.

Does the culture change the law or does the law change the culture?

It is meaningless to talk about changing the law unless we are actively involved in changing the beliefs and values that govern us as individuals through discussion, debate, teaching, symbolism and active demonstration. Even with a Supreme Court overturn of Roe, we would still have a long way to go in changing the United States from a culture of death to a culture of life. Every law currently in place that places a restriction on abortion is in fact a legal precedent that affirms Roe v. Wade. Even if Roe were struck down tomorrow, these incremental measures would stand even in states that had a ban or restriction on abortion prior to Roe.

"You must have parental consent, a five day waiting period, and an ultra-sound, then you have the legal right to kill your baby!"

That is the standard presented by many "pro-life" measures at this time. This is no way to build a culture of life. We cannot affirm the right to life by applauding legal child murder only in some circumstances. The way to affirm a culture of life is to legally define the personhood of a human being from the beginning of biological development.

Personhood is an incremental step in that regard.

We can legally define "the beginning of biological development" of an individual. We can further define that biological development as constituting a human life, a legal "person" and a "natural person." That will change the culture.

In the state of Florida, to eventually get 60 percent of the voters to agree to this as a ballot proposition, first we must ask eight percent to think about it and agree with their signatures that such an amendment is needed. Even if we fail to get the signatures needed, we are actively engaging in evangelism. We are working to get the hearts and minds of people lined up with truth. People who have never evangelized before will lead people to Christ through their petitioning. That will change the culture.

When we get the amendment on the ballot, there will be a huge fight. A debate over abortion and when life begins has never occurred in our culture at large. Legalized abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy was enforced from the top down in most states by a Supreme Court decision. Even in states that had legal abortion, there were restrictions that were knocked down by Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. For the first time in 37 years, we will be calling on the free will of the people to decide for themselves. That will change the culture.

If the measure fails in Florida, we will keep trying in other states until one passes. Within 24 hours there will be a legal injunction by a higher court that calls on the state to not enforce laws regulating or banning abortion. At that point, the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case. Even if we lose, we win. It will be establish a clear cut division between the will of the courts and the will of the people. That will change the culture.

Then we will seek to pass such amendments and resolutions in other states. That will change the culture.

We will eventually get such an intitiative passed in 34 of the so-called "red states" -- enough for a United States Constitutional Amendment that will protect the life of a person from the beginning of biological development. Roe will be moot. Now longer will it be the fiat "law of the land" enforced by judicial tyranny. It will only apply to Roe and Wade. And I hear Jane Roe is now pro-life.

We can change the culture, but it must come from the will of the people, not through the courts. It must come through the states.

Key Facts

1. Through 2008, there were 24 voter petition initiatives on the Florida ballot since the process began in 1978 (in addition to legislative initiatives).

2. Of those 24, 20 were approved by voters.

3. Florida voters have approved a higher percentage of their statewide ballot measures than voters in any other state.

This position paper is not copyrighted and may be forwarded to anyone without prior permission.

Would the Florida Personhood Amendment ban birth control?

The following person wrote to express her concern about the proposed Personhood Amendment:

I am very pro-life but I cannot in good conscience vote "yes" on this.

I take birth control for medical reasons. I have been married for over 11 years and want nothing more than to have a baby. However, due to medical problems beyond my control, I MUST take birth control to ensure I have a monthly menstrual cycle. If I don't take birth control, I do NOT get my period and have suffered from hemorrhaging that almost killed me, anemia, scar tissue build-up on my reproductive organs, etc.

If this group would at least eliminate the proposed ban on birth control from the language of the amendment, I would support it. However, as is, they do not have my support.

Posted by: Maureen on September 30, 2009 1:07 PM

The proposed ballot initiative defines a "person" and a "natural person" as a human being "from the beginning of the biological development."

The language of the amendment says nothing about birth control.

This is what this amendment will say when it is eventually passed:

The words “person” and “natural person” apply to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, health, function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

For information on how to download and circulate petitions go to http://personhoodfl.com/ On the petition form itself is the language of the amendment.

How did this "ban birth control" distortion get started in Florida? The media asked Dr. Patricia McEwen at a press conference in Tallahassee on September 11, 2009, if the amendment would ban abortifacient birth control because some think estrogen-based birth control pills work by causing an embryo not to implant in the wall of the mother's uterus. Dr. McEwen correctly explained that it would first need to be established which forms of birth control are abortifacient and which are contraceptive. As an experienced researcher with a PhD, Pat said she believes that this is far from a settled issue. The latter portion of the statement didn't make it into most news reports.

The next day we saw headlines around the state of Florida with this nonsense proclaiming that the amendment would "ban birth control" and grant human rights to a "fertilized egg." This was dishonest reporting and it even made many pro-life advocates confused about the amendment's language.

Obviously, if and when the abortifacient nature of certain types of chemical birth control can be demonstrated, there would need to be better and safer methods prescribed. In fact, the therapy Maureen is describing might be able to be done with progesterone, which does not affect implantation. On the other hand, estrogen is often used for contraception, but it may also affect implantation and cause spontaneous abortion.

Additional study and legislation would be needed to define legal contraception and hormonal therapy as methods that do not kill a human being. Such methods are already available that are much safer and more reliable than methods that may cause spontaneous abortion. Hormone replacement therapy for example is seldom prescribed now because of the complications involved. These dangers, mostly cardiovascular (heart attack or stroke) are also true of the "pill." It is simply not a "safe" method of contraception. In fact, natural methods are safer and more reliable if used correctly.

The language of the Personhood Amendment simply does not deal with this question. It just tells us what the legal definition of a "person" is.

Commentary

Most Americans would ban most abortion on demand because it is the killing of a human person. This is supported by biblical law, but even natural law supports this view. It has been demonstrated through intra-uterine photography, fetal photoscopy, and now with 3-D and 4-D ultrasound, that a "person" is a human being from the beginning of biological development.

A "person" is described in the United States Constitution and all state constitutions as having inalienable rights given to us by our Creator God. Still we needed an amendment to define blacks and minorities as "persons." Now we need to define all human beings as persons at their biological beginnings. And we must begin to do this state-by-state until enough states are on board to pass a federal Constitutional Amendment.

"All human beings are persons from the beginning of biological development."

Memorize that phrase and repeat it as often as possible!

It is a mistake to let the other side define the language of debate. We can win by emphasizing what most people in most states already believe -- that all human beings are persons at their biological beginnings. I am excited about Personhood because I believe that this is the way we will eventually win. But I am discouraged to see the language being shifted by the pro-aborts to emphasize "birth control" and "fertilized eggs" instead of keeping the emphasis on the definition of a "person."

An embryo is not a "fertilized egg." This is an oxymoron. An embryo is a tiny biologically developing human being. In any case, the language of the amendment speaks only about the beginning of biological development. It doesn't deal with questions about contraception, implantation and whether biological beginnings must be observed. The gist of the language must be interpreted to mean that when we are certain of biological beginnings, then this tiny human being must be considered a person.

It's simple language and that is the reason for the distortion. The pro-abortion media are the lap dogs of Planned Parenthood and NARAL. They get their talking points directly from them. They know our language is powerful and that is why they are trying to distort it. They know where the public is moving on the issue of developing human life.

And they know we will win with this language!

The way to begin to create a culture of life is to affirm the personhood of a human being from the beginning of biological development. Forget the "life begins at conception" or "life begins at fertilization" argument. Forget about "fertilized eggs." Forget discussions about abortifacient birth control. We can't legally determine the moment of conception for every individual -- at least not at this point in our scientific and medical knowledge. And if we could ever determine this, a law regulating abortion shortly after the moment of conception would continue to be almost unenforceable due to the lack of visible evidence in most cases.

While it is a biblical truth that life begins at conception, the civil law is constrained to operate on a much narrower parameter. And practically, elective abortions are never done until we know that life has begun -- at six weeks and later – long after the "little one" in the womb shows compelling signs of biological development. The issue of abortifacient birth control is another issue. RU-486 is another issue to be regulated by specific laws. It's related to the implications of such an amendment, but the amendment does not even address that idea. The amendment simply says that when we can discern the beginning of the biological development of a human being, then that is a "person" according to legal definitions.

It is an incremental step in that regard.

Feel free to use any or all of the above when countering this media myth. Please help us to circulate over a million of these petitions. We need over 600,000 valid signatures from registered voters to get this on the ballot. And be prepared to help us counter the distortions. There is a big fight coming! We pray it will have a peaceful outcome.

Personhood Florida - How to circulate ballot petitions

Cal and Corrie Zastrow train volunteers in Longwood, Florida.

Watch this video and then download a copy of the petition at:

http://personhoodfl.com/resource-kits/

1. Post this video on your web page or blog. (Get the code at YouTube.)

- or -

2. Forward the url to every pro-life Christian you know.

Let's get Personhood initiatives started in 35 states!

Senator Bob Smith endorses the Florida Personhood Amendment

This letter has been out for a few days, but it's the first time I've seen it. It's exciting, because as a former US Senator, Smith has the experience and the credibility to do well in the upcoming Senatorial race. Even if he doesn't win the primaries in a crowded Republican field, the significance of this is that it will force at least some of the other Republican candidates to support the initiative as well. This is really good news!

From: Senator Bob Smith bob_smith@bobsmithussenate.com
Subject: I Strongly Endorse the Personhood Amendment
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 1:20 PM

Fellow Members of Florida's Pro Life Community:

I wholeheartedly support the initiative for a Personhood Amendment to our state constitution. Not only does pro-life include protecting the unborn, but all people at every stage of their lives. Every individual has dignity and it is not the function of government to decide which lives have more value than others. You have my pledge that as your U.S. Senator I will pursue this at the federal level as vigorously as I led the fight to enact the Partial Birth Abortion Ban during my previous tenure in the U.S. Senate.

May God bless our efforts on this vital issue.

Senator Bob

--
Robert C. Smith
Former United States Senator (1991-2003); and
Candidate for United States Senate from Florida

This is an official communication authorized by Friends of Senator Bob Smith. Paid for by Friends of Senator Bob Smith. Not authorized by any other candidate committee or political action committee.

www.friendsofsenatorbobsmith.com

Frank Schaeffer, will you PLEASE shut up! (part 4)

Here is a great postmodernist quote by Frank Schaeffer from his blog:

While the term postmodernism is often used to describe an aesthetic, artistic worldview characterized by a distrust of theories and ideology, I think it usefully applies (or rather should apply) to the "certainties" on both sides in the religion vs. atheism debate.

Brilliant! In other words, "Postmodernism doesn't mean uncertainty; it means certainty." Or does it? One can never be too sure about these things!

In any case, one thing is certain, Frank Schaeffer has learned to use blogspot.com and since August has been blogging from his parents' basement. (Metaphorically speaking of course!)

In part two, of this series, I claimed that the best way to confront Frank Schaeffer's attacks on common sense is to realize that he's just another angry postmodernist. The way to counter him is to first realize that virtually everything he says is complete drivel.

It reminds me of the passage in Through The Looking Glass in which Alice is talking to Humpty Dumpty:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.

Puzzled? That's exactly how I feel when reading or listening to Frank Schaeffer. I say: "But words mean things!" Franky Dumpty says: "No, they don't! They sneer whatever aesthetic I confuse they brrg snrffle!"

Ironically, after posting part two, in an episode of postmodernist doubt, I wondered if Frank Schaeffer himself has ever criticized existentialism and postmodernism as being an unviable philosophy, as his father, the late great Francis Schaeffer, had done so forcefully in How Should We Then Live? So I did a little research by reading his new blog.

Frank frequently quotes the 19th century philospoher Søren Kierkegaard, who was simultaneouly existentialist, neo-orthodox, postmodernist and humanist. One could sum up the entire philosophy of Kierkegaard as "uncertainty about God." Some of the most comic philosophical quotes of all time were offered by this crazy Dane. I say these are comic quotes, because they have the quality of sounding both obvious and profound, while really being nonsense. Kierkegard's philosophy is reminiscent of the "sound of one hand clapping" cliché of Zen Buddhism, which is meant to show that meaning comes only through accepting paradoxical truths. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" the Zen master asks. It's a rhetorical question. In other words, "People who know, do not know; just as people who do not know, do not know."

I must find a truth that is true for me.

Irony is a qualification of subjectivity.

It belongs to the imperfection of everything human that man can only attain his desire by passing through its opposite.

It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand.

So let others admire and extol him who claims to be able to comprehend Christianity. . . . I regard it then as a plain duty to admit that one neither can nor shall comprehend it.

William Blake: "Christ in the Sepulchre, Guarded by Angels"

Both Blake and Kierkegaard emphasized the belief that fear and anxiety come from not recognizing the tension of opposite forces. In Blake's case, this idea took the form of a Neo-Gnostic dualism.

Thus Kierkegaard represents the erupting existential angst among 19th century thinkers who feverishly sought out truth and meaning, but were never content with biblical truth and historic Christian orthodoxy as a source and thereby missed the forest for the trees.

Of course, not everything Kierkegaard said was wrong and it is subject to interpretation. If understood in a Christian context, Kierkegaard's idea of a "leap of faith" has some antecedents among the writings of the Church Fathers. But to understand Frank Schaeffer, one must understand that he -- like Kierkegard, Karl Barth, Albert Schweitzer, and Rudolph Bultmann before him -- is self-consciously neo-orthodox. The term, neo-orthodoxy is somewhat misleading in that it isn't a "new orthodoxy," but a mid-20th century revision of the Historical Critical method espoused by the liberal theologians 50 to 100 years prior to that.

Today Frank has ventured to express his admiration of Kierkegard and Barth. Don't be surprised that if tomorrow you hear him echoing Bishop Shelby Spong and John Dominic Crossan. He's an iconclast who has taken to disagreeing with anyone who stands for certainty and objective truth. His mode of operation is first contradiction and then affirmation in the next breath. In this way, he is impossible to pin down.

The promo to his new book says:

Frank Schaeffer has a problem with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and the rest of the New Atheists — the self-anointed “Brights.” He also has a problem with the Rick Warrens and Tim LaHayes of the world. The problem is that he doesn’t see much of a difference between the two camps. As Schaeffer puts it, they “often share the same fallacy: truth claims that reek of false certainties. I believe that there is an alternative that actually matches the way life is lived rather than how we usually talk about belief.”

I too have a problem with Dawkins, Hitchens, Warren and LaHaye. But it isn't because they speak of certainties. On the contrary, it is because Dawkins and Hitchens are postmodernist atheists reveling in ad hominems designed to provoke an emotional response and making all sorts of illogical appeals. On the other hand, Warren and LaHaye, while being orthodox in the essentials, have spouted all sorts of bizzare minor heresies in their best-selling books. It's not an issue of "certainty" being false in and of itself, but of them being certain of their error.

Frank Schaeffer is criticizing these men not for merely being wrong. He is essentially saying that anyone who thinks he is absolutely right about something is wrong. And that is one thing he is absolutely sure about.

If everything I've written here only makes your head spin. Don't worry, it's a sign that you are sane. The point to remember is that Frank Schaeffer, supposedly a one-time champion of Reformed Orthodoxy, has succumbed to Gnostic dualism. He's adopted an elitist attitude that sneers at every Christian who grasps at the fixed anchor of biblical truth.

In part five, we'll look at whether Frank Schaeffer ever even understood Reformed theology to begin with.

Don't be fooled by Obamacare, it includes abortion!

I am on the NARAL Pro-Choice America email list because I like to see what they are thinking. As McArthur said, "Know your enemy."

This is from today.

Anti-choice politicians have drawn a line in the sand: they won't be happy until women who now have private insurance coverage for abortion lose it in the new health-care system. The stakes for women could not be higher in the health-care debate.

That's why we're meeting with key lawmakers all day today to drive the point home—and making sure that anti-choice legislators don't succeed in banning private insurance companies from covering abortion care in a reformed health-care system.

So according to NARAL, if Obamacare passes with a public option, then your tax dollars will pay for abortion. Commentators on the left have called us liars for saying the public option includes abortion, but when Nancy Keenan writes that they are making sure "anti-choice legislators don't succeed in banning abortion in a reformed health-care system," then we know that it is part of the public option. They know it is and want to save it.

Don't be fooled by the distinction between public and private. If healthcare stays in the hands of private companies then we still have a choice of what type of plan we pay into. If it becomes "public" (i.e, socialized) then you will pay for abortions.

Call your congressman and senators and do the opposite of what Nancy Keenan of NARAL says to do! And feel free to foreward this message to everyone you know.

- Jay Rogers
www.forerunner.com/blog

Franky Schaeffer, will you PLEASE shut up! (part 3)

What to say about the murder of pro-life activist James Pouillon?

Mark Browne, M.Ed, a speech-language pathologist from Melbourne, Florida offered this expert comment: "Frank Schaeffer's hateful demonizing speech against pro-lifers has created a culture where such things can occur, with little fanfare from the media."

Sal Lonberg, an ornithologist from Palm Bay, Florida said, "Like the vast majority of pro-life advocates, Jim was non-violent and never condoned violence. The great irony here is that the same people who rushed to canonize Tiller the Killer have remained deafeningly silent and have even celebrated the death of this gentle soul."

Carol Matthews, a scientist at Kennedy Space Center, was a bit more austere: "'Where do we go from here?' As Dr. Martin Luther King once said: 'When our days become dreary with low hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. Let us realize that William Cullen Bryant is right: "Truth crushed to earth will rise again." Let us go out realizing that the Bible is right: "Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." This is our hope for the future, and with this faith we will be able to sing in some not too distant tomorrow with a cosmic past tense, "We have overcome, we have overcome, deep in my heart, I did believe we would overcome."'"

In my last post, I pointed out the number of pro-abortion related homicides is huge. It's not surprising that a profession that makes it's living from legalized child murder has a huge number of homicide convictions among its practitioners.

There have been other pro-lifers besides Pouillon who have been murdered as well. It's usually a blip on the radar screen of liberal journalism so most people don't know about this.

Huntsville, Alabama — In 1993, pro-abortion activist Eileen Orstein Janezic murdered pro-life activist minister and radio talk show host Jerry Simon in Huntsville, Alabama. After killing Simon, she held police at bay with a pistol for six hours while spouting quotes from Anton LaVey's "Satanic Bible." In October 1994, a jury found her guilty of murder, and she was sentenced to life in prison.

Monterey, Tennessee - On the morning of October 19, 1998, pro-abortionist Byron Looper, a Monterey, Tennessee county property assessor running against pro-life state Senator Tommy Burks, shot Burks in the left eye with a large-caliber handgun near a pumpkin patch where he planned to take schoolchildren on a hayride that same day. A witness said that Looper told him after the murder that "I did it, man, I did it! I killed that dude!" In 2000, Looper was convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole.

Owosso, Michigan - James Pouillon, 63, was killed Friday morning while protesting across the street from a high school in Owosso, about 70 miles northwest of Detroit. Pouillon was in his usual spot holding a sign that pictured a chubby-cheeked baby with the word "LIFE" on one side and an image of an aborted fetus with the word "ABORTION" on the other. Authorities allege Harlan Drake, 33, of Owosso pulled up to Pouillon in a truck and opened fire. Prosecutors say Pouillon's methods irritated Drake, particularly when used near the high school. Drake also is accused of killing a local business owner earlier that day.

These are just three of over 95 convicted homicides committed in pro-abortion related incidents. The full list is found at Human Life International's pro-abortion violence Web site at http://www.abortionviolence.com/. This Web site shows detailed state-by-state and city-by-city documentation of more than 8,000 incidents of pro-abortion violence and lawbreaking.

In contrast, there have been nine homicides committed in anti-abortion related incidents: four doctors and five abortion clinic workers.

People on both sides of the debate are trying to argue that these were mentally unbalanced people whose actions do not represent the advocacy of either pro-life or abortion rights. For the sake of non-argument, I agree with that statement.

But where do we go from here?

From 1993 to 2000, I lived in and later owned a house directly across the street from one of America's most notorious abortion clinics, Aware Woman Center for Choice. The trustee of the property prior to my purchase was the National Director of Operation Rescue, Keith Tucci.

Keith once told me that before he got involved in Operation Rescue in the late 1980s, he confronted its founder Randall Terry with a serious question, "Do you think it is possible that anyone could die as a result of direct action against abortion clinics?" Randall said without hesitation that it would likely happen. The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s was a peaceful movement, he reasoned, which encouraged direct action similar to that of Operation Rescue. Numerous arrests occurred. Yet although it is known for being a peaceful protest movement, many deaths on either side occurred as tensions rose and even the peaceful protesters sometimes broke with the pledge to non-violence advocated by Dr. Martin Luther King. In addition, 40 Civil Rights advocates were murdered.

This memorial in Montgomery, Alabama is dedicated to the 40 Civil Rights advocates were murdered including Dr. King.

Not many people know this, but Operation Rescue, and the various pro-life resistance movements that still go on today at abortion clinics, have formed the largest civil disobedience (we prefer the term "biblical obedience") movement in history. I was arrested five times from 1989 to 1996. I know other pro-lifers with dozens of arrests for their peaceful protest of child killing. In all there have been over 75,000 pro-life activists arrested for their peaceful resistance to child killing. In all that confrontation, it is amazing that more people have not been killed.

In the time that I lived across from Aware Woman until now, I have known of many pro-lifers who have received death threats and others who have been attacked, such as Patte Smith who made this video of a doctor who assailed her while she was sidewalk counseling at Orlando Women's Center.



Those holding pro-life signs along US Highway 1 often had oncoming cars swerve in their direction honking their horns at them. My property was vandalized several times.

What do we expect? We are in a war. We strive to use prayer and the preaching of the Gospel as the weapons of our warfare. But occasionally this real spiritual war is going to spill over into physical violence, which is always detrimental to the pro-life cause no matter who is harmed. The great irony is that there have been far many more murders, acts of violence and other illegal acts by pro-abortionists. But the media won't cover it because it rocks their worldview.

Into the fray steps Frank Schaeffer.

And when you look at what happened to Dr. Tiller, there's a direct line connecting the rhetoric that I was part of as a young man and this murder. And so people like me are responsible for what we said and what we did and the way we raised the temperature on this debate out of all bounds. And so when O'Reilly talks about the fact that these people of the far left are against Fox or against him or trying to muzzle debate, he's telling a lie.

I am not a member of the far right. Until I voted for Barack Obama in the last election I was a lifelong Republican and I am still pro-life. I also believe abortion should be legal, but I agree with Barack Obama when he says we ought to find ways to help women, help children, give contraceptives, sex education to lessen the number of abortions. I think abortion is a tragedy. But I also think that pretending that you can call abortion murder and Tiller the baby killer, etc., etc., etc. and that these words don't have an impact is crazy. So this is what helps unhinge a society, talking like that. And I apologize and I will apologize again. I am sorry for what I did.

Question:-- When Frank Schaefer says that pro-lifers who call abortion "murder" are "unhinged" and "responsible" for Tiller's death, can we also draw a direct line between those angry words and the death of our gentle friend, James Pouillon?

Question:-- When Frank Schaeffer says, "I am still pro-life" what does that mean? Does it mean that he dislikes abortion because it is messy and distasteful? Or does he oppose abortion because it is the wanton taking of an innocent baby boy or girl in violation of God's commandment, "You shall not murder"?

In the next installment of "Frank Schaeffer, will you PLEASE shut up?" I'll examine the discontinuity of Franks' so-called "pro-life" stance and explain further why he really needs to shut up.

A list of 95 convicted homicides by abortion doctors and pro-abortion advocates

Here's interesting trivia question:

Q:-- Not counting legal abortions, which legal profession has the highest per capita homicide rate committed by its full-time practitioners?

A:-- Abortion doctors.

If you care at all about the abortion issue, you already know about the pro-life activist who was killed by a pro-abortion advocate. It's not the only incident.

In 1993, pro-abortion activist Eileen Orstein Janezic murdered 51-year old pro-life activist minister and radio talk show host Jerry Simon. After killing Simon, she held police at bay with a pistol for six hours while spouting quotes from Anton LaVey's "Satanic Bible." On October 27, 1994, a jury found her guilty of murder and sentenced her to life in prison. During trial, she admitted that she had shot Simon to prove her love of Satan.

World Magazine, September 18, 1993; "Pro-Life Leader, Pastor Murdered by Avowed Satanist."

This and the recent murder are two of the most outrageous examples. But there have been other murders committed by abortionists. The number of homicides per capita in the US is less 1 in 20,000 per year -- or 1 in 2000 in the past 20 years. But according to the following, the number of homicides committed by abortionists and pro-abortion advocates (of born people) is 95. If there has been an abortion doctor for every abortion clinic that has ever existed in America (about 2000 -- and I think that is a high estimate) then that would make the homicide rate among abortion doctors much higher than the per capita homicide rate for all Americans. I'll leave it to someone else to do the math (the list includes both abortion advocates and doctors) but even a rough crunching of the following data shows it is no contest as to which profession commits the most convicted homicides.

This list of 95 murders is from Human Life International's pro-abortion violence Web site at www.abortionviolence.com. This Web site shows detailed state-by-state and city-by-city documentation of more than 8,000 incidents of pro-abortion violence and lawbreaking.

ANDERSON: In November 1999, Pasadena abortionist Kevin Paul Anderson strangled his business partner, neonatologist Dr. Deepti Gupta, a mother of two young children who was expecting her third. They were involved in an extramarital affair, and she was carrying his baby. Anderson was arrested by the police when a passerby noticed him pushing Gupta's Mercedes off a 450-foot cliff in the San Gabriel Mountains, after dousing her with gasoline, to make it appear that she had been killed in an accident. He confessed to Gupta's murder. In December 2000, Anderson was convicted of second-degree murder by a Pasadena jury (Los Angeles, California).
#
BALDWIN: Michael Paul Baldwin, 21, had a 15-year-old girlfriend, Amanda Lynn Hanson, who was four months pregnant with his baby. He lured Amanda Lynn into a secluded area, and killed her by jamming a branch an inch in diameter down her throat with such force that her tongue was nearly torn loose. Several of her teeth were also broken out. Baldwin then jammed sticks into her other body orifices, one 10 inches inside her body. After he strangled her, Baldwin beat her and crushed her skull with a 30-pound rock. Baldwin was charged with first-degree murder, rape, and several other felonies. He confessed and, in November 2002, he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. Sheriff John Anderson called the killing "the most vicious I've seen in my 30 years in law enforcement" (Colorado Springs, Colorado).
*
BARREIRO: Abortionist Hipolito Barreiro was charged with manslaughter for the January 1983 death of Shirley Payne. Barreiro had previously killed at least three other women with his "safe and legal" abortions, including Ruth Montero in August 1979; Maura Morales in May 1981; and Marta Baptiste in December 1982 (Miami, Florida).
*
BENJAMIN: Abortionist David Benjamin killed Guadalupe Negron, a mother of four, in July 1993. During the abortion, he lacerated Negron's cervix and punctured her uterus, causing severe bleeding. Then the abortionist abandoned her. Negron's autopsy report attributed her death to massive bleeding causing shock and cardiac arrest. Benjamin was indicted and convicted on murder charges due to "depraved indifference to human life" (New York, New York).
*
BENSON: 16-year-old Vanessa Youngbear of Weatherford, Oklahoma, was 7 months pregnant by her boyfriend, Trevor Wayne Benson, who did not want the baby. So Benson and one of his friends took Vanessa for a little ride. They took her to a deserted field, shot her in the head, and pushed her body into a ditch. Police arrested Benson and his friend the next day and charged them both with first-degree murder for the 2002 killing (Weatherford, Oklahoma).
*
BICKHAM: Abortionist Arnold Bickham aborted Sylvia J. Moore in December 1986, using first-trimester techniques for a second-trimester pregnancy. He lacerated her internal organs so badly that she collapsed. Bickham called her "lazy" and ejected her from his abortion mill. Moore then bled to death. The postmortem report stressed "gross negligence and abandonment on the part of the original treating physician. In consideration of the above, the manner of death is determined to be homicide" (Chicago, Illinois).
*
BISHOP: Richard Bishop's ex-girlfriend, Tiffany Watkins, was nearly seven months pregnant, and he was not happy about it at all. So, on March 30, 2004, he awakened Tiffany, saying that he wanted to talk to her about her pregnancy. Then he repeatedly stabbed her in the chest, back and arms. Tiffany was rushed to a hospital, where she lost her viable preborn baby. Bishop was charged with murder and attempted murder for his attack (Richmond, Indiana).
*
BISKIND: In April 1998, Phoenix abortionist John Biskind aborted Louann Herron's 26-week-old preborn child, then left the abortion mill while she bled to death. In February 2001, a jury found Biskind guilty of manslaughter and clinic administrator Carol Stuart-Schadoff guilty of negligent homicide in the Herron case (Phoenix, Arizona).
*
BOLER: DeShone Boler was married, but was committing adultery with Emily Garrison, who was pregnant with his child. His wife, Crystal Michele, was understandably unhappy with this cheating, so she decided to take action. She went to Garrison's home, beat her up with a gun, bit her severely on the shoulder, stabbed her in the neck with a knife, and finally shot her five times (Brazoria, Texas).
*
BOYD: 29-year-old Mark Boyd of St. Louis hired Malik J. Nettles to do a little job for him. His 15-year-old girlfriend, Kyunia Taylor, was pregnant with his child, and he did not want the child. So Nettles murdered Kyunia as she rode home on a school bus in February 1996. He boarded the bus and began firing, killing Kyunia and her preborn baby, named Diamond, who was delivered by Caesarean section three months premature. The baby lived for 23 days but died. Nettles also shot the bus driver, Richard Lanman, three times, but he survived. Boyd was arrested after being indicted on murder charges in both deaths (St. Louis, Missouri).
*
BROWN: On January 22, 1999, the 26th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, pro-abortionist Eric Laquinne Brown of Pontotoc, Mississippi strangled to death his pregnant ex-girlfriend Shorlonda Moore and left the bodies of Moore and her preborn child in a burned-out car in Memphis, Tennessee. In November 1999, Brown received a life sentence for the murder of Moore and a concurrent 20-year manslaughter sentence for the killing of her preborn child after pleading guilty to the charges (Memphis, Tennessee).
#
BULLOCK, ERIK: Erik Bullock of Little Rock, Arkansas, wanted his girlfriend, Shawana Pace to have an abortion. She refused, so he hired three thugs to kick her repeatedly in the belly and kill her full-term preborn baby. Pace pleaded for her baby's life as she was kicked, choked and punched on August 26, 1999. One of the attackers told her "Your baby is dying tonight." Pace had to have her spleen removed, and also suffered a broken left wrist, black eye and bruised face. Bullock and the three thugs were charged with capital murder in the first test of Arkansas' new Fetal Protection Law. A jury convicted Bullock of capital murder (Little Rock, Arkansas).
*
BULLOCK, MATTHEW: Matthew Bullock strangled his girlfriend to death. She was six months pregnant and he did not want his baby. So he decided to abort both her and her preborn child. He then tied up her body and hid her in a closet (Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania).
*
BUNYARD: Jerry and Elaine Bunyard had been married for three years, and Elaine was ecstatic that she was about a week away from delivering their first child, a little girl, in 1979. But Jerry Bunyard wasn't as excited. He was carrying on an adulterous affair with a Tracy woman and thought his wife would "take him for everything he had" if he divorced her, a witness said. So Bunyard approached a biker-type boyhood friend, Earlin Popham, and offered him $1,000 to kill his wife. When Elaine Bunyard was alone in the kitchen, Popham broke an iron skillet on her skull. He then shot her in the head with a shotgun and tried to make the crime look like both a robbery and a suicide (Stockton, California).
*
CALAC: On February 15, 2004, Andre F. Calac shot his pregnant girlfriend, Marlene J. Magee, in the head. He was charged with murder (San Diego, California).
#
CANO: Gilberto Cano's live-in girlfriend, Martha Isela Moreno, was nearly seven months pregnant, and was looking forward to having her little girl. But Cano was not quite so happy about it, so he decided to abort both her and her preborn child. In April 2002, he stabbed her several times in the abdomen with a long kitchen knife and then strangled her to death. Cano was arrested that night, jailed, and charged with two counts of murder (San Francisco, California).
*
CARLOS: Kansas City, Missouri abortionist Lynn D. Weller was shot to death in his home in September 1973 by two masked gunmen who were hired by rival abortionist William Carlos. Carlos was angry that Weller was having an affair with his ex-wife (Kansas City, Missouri).
*
CARRUTH: Carolina Panthers football player Rae Carruth's girlfriend, Cherica Adams, was eight months pregnant. He did not want to pay child support, and demanded that she have an abortion, but she refused. So he hired a hit man to shoot Adams. Carruth and three accomplices laid a trap, and Carruth helped close it by blocking Adams' car so another man could pull alongside and shoot her. In March 2001, Michael Kennedy pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in Adams' death. The triggerman, Van Brett Watkins, also confessed (Charlotte, North Carolina).
*
COOPER: Abortionist Boyd Cooper performed a 23-week abortion on a 2-pound, 2-ounce infant boy, who gasped and attempted to breathe after he was aborted. Cooper made no efforts to revive or help the little one because his parents wanted him dead. So the little baby was placed in a utility room used as an infant morgue. Cooper instructed a nurse, "Leave the baby there -- it will die." The nurse testified that the infant was still gasping in the closet when she returned to work 12 hours later (New York, New York).
*
DAVIS, TERRANCE: Sonya Hayes was just days away from giving birth to a full-term 7-pound boy when her boyfriend, Terrance Davis of Toledo, Ohio, gunned her down in her car as she waited to pick up her 5-year-old son. Davis was wearing a Halloween mask to impede identification, and shot Sonya six times in the belly and upper torso, emptying his revolver. Prosecutors said it was obvious that the shooter was aiming for Sonya's belly in an attempt to kill their unborn child. Davis was charged with three counts of aggravated murder for shooting and killing Hayes and her unborn child (Toledo, Ohio).
#
DAVIS, WILLIAM: Matthew Elliott and William Davis of Magnolia, Arkansas, dug a grave for 15-year old Brittni Pater, who was 12 weeks pregnant. Then they lured her into the woods and bludgeoned her repeatedly with a long, heavy metal bar wrapped with heavy tape around one end, as though the person who wielded it wanted to make sure he was able to get a good grip. Then they ran her down with their car and dumped her battered body in an old gravel pit. Elliott immediately bragged to his friends about how he had killed Brittni. Elliott and Davis were both charged with capital murder after giving statements in which Brittni's pregnancy was cited as the reason she was killed. On November 2, 2000, a Columbia County jury found Davis guilty of capital murder for his part in the fatal beating (Magnolia, Arkansas).
*
DEHENRE: Jackson, Mississippi abortionist Malachi Dehenre, primary abortionist at the New Women's Clinic abortion mill, was tried and convicted in April 1998 for murdering his wife, Nyesha Dehenre, who worked with him (Jackson, Mississippi).
*
DRAGIN: Notorious Chicago abortion mill owner Kenneth "The Creep" Yellen literally died in the gutter after his gangland-style execution in November 1979, from five shots in the head as he walked to work. The primary suspect was Robin Dragin, a professional burglar with mob connections, who organized a Chicago abortion clinic that had been in competition with Yellin's operation. Before abortion was legalized, Dragin was a principal in the operation of an illegal abortion ring in the north-west suburbs (Chicago, Illinois).
*
EASON: Marc Eason was a vocal pro-abortionist who worked at the Dadeland abortion clinic in Miami. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for the ax-murders of his two roommates. Eason claimed the murders were "justifiable homicide" because the roommates had "complained about his sloppiness." He also stabbed his abortionist mother, Betty Eason, in the neck with a steak knife (Miami, Florida).
*
EDELIN: In January of 1975, Boston abortionist Kenneth Edelin aborted a live and viable baby boy and then deliberately smothered him. He was subsequently convicted of manslaughter, but the conviction was overturned because of improper jury instructions (Boston, Massachusetts).
*
FOAT: In 1965, Ginny Foat, president of the California chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW), bludgeoned Argentine businessman Moises Chayo to death with a tire iron outside a bar, and murdered San Francisco hotel employee Donald Fitting after picking him up in a bar (San Francisco, California).
#
FOUNTAIN: Ex-convict Tony Fountain had an affair with 17-year-old Chavanna Prather, a high school junior, and she became pregnant by him. He did not want the baby, and, in April 2001, he shot Chavanna in the stomach, abdomen and hand, then strangled her and repeatedly stabbed her in a crime so vicious that it shocked even hardened investigators. Fountain was charged with first-degree murder and the intentional killing of an unborn child (Chicago, Illinois).
*
FRANKLIN: In February 1980, abortionist James Franklin killed Betty Jane Zellers Damato during a botched criminal abortion and was sentenced to three years for manslaughter (Denver, Colorado).
*
GANDOTRA: San Diego abortionist Suresh Gandotra killed Magdalena Orteg Rodrigues during a botched abortion in December 1994. Gandotra fled the country to his homeland of India before authorities could formally charge him with an upgraded charge of murder (San Diego, California).
#
GOINS: Even by pro-abortion standards, this case is grisly in the extreme, and perfectly illustrates the vile and murderous nature of anti-life thinking. 22-year-old Glenn Isaac Goins confessed to murdering 24-year-old Amanda Wood of Johnson City, who was at least four months pregnant, in January 2004, after police told him they had found her body in the basement of his mother's house. An investigator testified that Goins said "I did it. I killed her." Goins said he had seen Amanda, watched her a couple of times, and wondered what it would be like to kill her. Goins testified that he said "And I said "I'm going to kill you." She said "Please don't" or something like that, and I smacked her in the face and told her to shut up. She was sitting on the bed, and I took a towel and started choking her with the towel. I kept on choking her until she died." Goins then told how he stuffed Amanda's body in a sleeping bag and moved her to the basement, and then tried to clean up the scene. Goins then wrapped her body in plastic and duct tape. He said "I never felt bad about what I have done. Whenever I let her in my car, I knew I was going to kill her and nothing would stop me." Goins was charged with first-degree murder in Amanda's death. But hers was not the only murder he confessed to. On January 12, 2004, Goins was indicted in Louisville, Kentucky, on charges of murder, first-degree rape and first-degree robbery in the 1999 slaying of country singer Melissa Januskevicius, 20, of Stevens Point. He was also charged in two other cases of the murder of women. When questioned about one of his murders, Goins admitted that he "liked killing people." According to police investigators, at no time did Goins show a scrap of remorse for any of his murders (Johnson City, Tennessee).
*
GRATTON: Edward Gratton, 34, of London, Ontario, raped 16-year old Glenda Tedball repeatedly, and she became pregnant. When her pregnancy became known, Gratton grabbed Glenda and held her down while her own mother, Norma Poore, forcibly aborted her. Glenda died soon after (London, Ontario, Canada).
*
GREEN: On January 3, 2004, Lawrence Green savagely beat his pregnant girlfriend, 21-year-old Rashawn Peterson. He kicked her twice in the abdomen and then beat her with a broomstick and his fists at their home, causing her to go into premature labor at Barnes-Jewish Hospital. Medical examiner Dr. Michael Graham said that the beating resulted in bleeding behind the placenta, resulting in the baby's premature birth. He ruled the death a homicide. Rashawn named her dead baby "Rosie" (St. Louis, Missouri).
*
GREGG: Raymond Gregg's live-in girlfriend, Angela Russell, was pregnant, and he was not happy about it. So he solved his `problem' in the most direct manner possible. He admitted to police that he killed Angela, and then buried her body in woods off Statem Gap Road in Hamblen County. In October 2003, Gregg pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was given the maximum possible sentence, 25 years in prison without parole (Morristown, Tennessee).
*
GWYNNE: Abortionist John Gwynne was convicted of the first-degree murder of his nineteen-year-old girlfriend (Los Angeles, California).
*
HAMILTON, JOHN: Prominent Oklahoma City abortionist John Baxter Hamilton was having an affair with a topless dancer he had aborted, and his wife was considering leaving him. On Valentine's Day 2001, Hamilton choked his wife with a necktie, beat her over the head with a heavy blunt object hard enough to smash a hole in her skull, and then slammed her face repeatedly onto the floor. In December 2001, a jury convicted Hamilton of murdering his wife. Amazingly, pro-abortionists tried to get all charges dropped against Hamilton by sending death threats to at least three news agencies, District Attorney Wes Lane and state witnesses against Hamilton. Even more incredibly, Hamilton's lawyer said that police should be investigating local pro-lifers as suspects in the murder, not the abortionist! (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
*
HAMILTON, MICHAEL: In November 1981, 27-year-old Michael Hamilton gunned down his pregnant wife Gwendolyn with a shotgun on a rural road near Fresno. Her preborn child was killed in the assault as well. Then he tried to collect on her $100,000 life insurance policy. In 1982, he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death (Fresno, California).
*
HANNA: Abortionist Alicia Ruiz Hanna was convicted in 1994 of second-degree murder after Angela Sanchez, a mother of four, died at Hanna's abortion mill. Hanna tried to stuff Angela's body into the trunk of a car in order to dump her body across the border in Tijuana, Mexico. Hanna was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for murder (Los Angeles, California).
*
HAWKINS: Leah Hawkins of Lamar, Kansas, testified that her husband Jason beat her with a log from a woodpile while she was pregnant and after she refused to have an abortion. Her 10-month-old daughter witnessed the beating. Her son was born three months premature as a result of the beating and died December 26, 1999, at a Kansas City hospital. Jason Hawkins was charged with second-degree murder (Lamar, Missouri).
*
HERRERA: Carlos Herrera and Brenda Chavez were having an affair, and Chavez became pregnant. Herrera did not want the child, so he solved the problem in the most efficient way possible. In February 2001, Herrera and Chavez met for one of their late-afternoon trysts at the Southern Ute Sand and Gravel pit. Herrera beat Chavez to death and disposed of her body and vehicle by running the vehicle off a steep embankment into a grove of trees (Durango, Colorado).
#
HOHBERGER: Henry C. Hohberger III of Philadelphia found out that his pregnant girlfriend, Diane Grant, was carrying a baby girl, and he was upset about this because, as he told a maternity nurse, "I already have a daughter. ... It's supposed to be a damn boy." He also did not feel like paying child support, so he repeatedly tried to get Diane to have an abortion, but she refused every time. In November 2001, when the baby girl -- named Nicole -- was just seven weeks old, Hohberger beat and shook his little girl so severely that she suffered skull and rib fractures, and died five days later. Among Nicole's injuries were four broken ribs that were healing. The little baby girl also had eleven newly broken ribs, two fractures to her skull, and multiple hemorrhages to her head and eyes, the coroner's report stated. In November 2001, Hohberger was charged with capital murder and criminal homicide (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania).
*
HOLLIMAN: High school student Tanika Fox of Greensboro, North Carolina, was pregnant by her boyfriend Shawn Kristopher Holliman. He did not want to be a father, and demanded she get an abortion. She refused. So, on December 14, 1999, he shot her twice in the head at point-blank range. He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. In 2000, the students at Tanika's high school dedicated their yearbook in her name (Greensboro, North Carolina).
*
HURD: Lorie Renee Hurd gave birth to full-term twin baby girls in the bathroom of her home. Then she stuffed them into a plastic bag, cinched it closed, and abandoned her dying babies. Hurd had had previous several abortions (Los Angeles, California).
#
IDELFONSO: On January 5, 2004, Antonio Dejesus Idelfonso and Eliseo Marcelino-Quintero were driving their pickup truck past a woman walking on the road when she fell down next to them. They stopped to see if they had hit her. 32-year-old Tracy Owen, who was so heavily pregnant she might have even been in labor at the time, was lying on the road, crying for help. Idelfonso told police that he responded, "Here's your help," and shot her five times in the upper body. One of the bullets struck her preborn child. Metro police detective Robert Swisher said "In my 22 years on the job, I have never seen anyone executed, and I mean executed, because someone thought they had hit the person with a vehicle. It sickens me." Both men were charged with murder (Nashville, Tennessee).
*
JANEZIC: In 1993, pro-abortion activist Eileen Orstein Janezic murdered pro-life activist minister and radio talk show host Jerry Simon in Huntsville, Alabama. After killing Simon, she held police at bay with a pistol for six hours while spouting quotes from Anton LaVey's "Satanic Bible." In October 1994, a jury found her guilty of murder, and she was sentenced to life in prison (Huntsville, Alabama).
*
JOHNSON, COLEMAN: Tammy Lynn Baker of Charlottesville, Virginia, was eight months pregnant by her boyfriend, Coleman L. "Mike" Johnson Jr. The only problem was that he did not want the baby to be born. He had demanded that Tammy Lynn have an abortion, but she had refused. So he planted a pipe bomb on the sidewalk outside Tammy Lynn's apartment. She picked it up, it exploded, and both she and her near-term preborn baby were killed instantly. In May 2001, Johnson was convicted of capital murder (Charlottesville, Virginia).
#
JOHNSON, RICHARD: Deborah Denise Randall was eight months pregnant by her boyfriend Richard Johnson and was happily awaiting the birth of her child. The only problem was a major one -- Johnson was 18 years older than her and did not want his baby. He beat her up repeatedly, at one point squeezing her as hard as he could to induce miscarriage. When repeated beatings did not cause her to lose her baby, he emptied his pistol into her, firing bullets into her head, neck and chest (Richmond, Virginia).
*
KARMAN: Harvey Karman of Los Angeles, the developer of the menstrual extraction technique of early abortion, had a three-page police record, including an arrest for murder in the death of an abortion client (Los Angeles, California).
*
KEEBLE: Sundance Medicinehorn Keeble was living with his 20-year-old sister and his 21-year-old girlfriend, who was four to five months pregnant. On November 21, 2003, Keeble deliberately stabbed his girlfriend in the stomach and savagely beat his own sister. He punched her in the mouth so hard she lost several teeth, and his girlfriend's preborn baby died as a result of his attack, although the girlfriend survived. Keeble was charged with fetal homicide, three counts of aggravated assault and simple assault. Brown County prosecutor Mark McNeary said "This was a heinous act. The defendant intentionally stabbed the woman in the stomach, causing the death of the unborn child" (Aberdeen, South Dakota).
*
KETCHUM: When New York legalized abortion on demand in 1970, abortionist Jesse Ketchum immediately set up shop in a Buffalo motel suite and began performing late-term abortions. Soon after, Ketchum was convicted of criminally negligent homicide after killing Margaret Louise Smith. A pathologist determined that Margaret bled to death from "laceration of the entire length of the cervix, lower segment of the uterus, and the broad ligament" (Buffalo, New York).
*
KLVANA: In 1989, Los Angeles abortionist Milos Klvana was sentenced to 53 years in prison after being found guilty of the intentional murder of eight newborn babies and the stillbirth of another infant (Los Angeles, California).
*
LAUFE: Abortionist Leonard Laufe aborted the 32-week pregnancy of a woman who falsely claimed that she had been raped. The prostaglandin abortion resulted in the baby being born alive. He then allowed the fully viable baby to die. The entire episode, including closeups of the baby gasping and kicking, was filmed for "educational purposes" (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).
#
LAGRONE: Pro-abortionist Edward Lewis LaGrone had repeatedly molested ten-year-old Shakeisha Lloyd, and she learned that she was 17 weeks pregnant. He offered to pay $1,500 for her to get an abortion, because he wanted to cover up his sexual abuse. She did not get the abortion, so LaGrone decided to abort not only the preborn baby, but Shakeisha's entire family. LaGrone went to Shakeisha's home and shot her uncle. Then he opened fire on two elderly women, Zenobia Anderson, 83, and Caola Lloyd, 76, who was blind and bedridden with cancer, killing them both. Shakeisha paused to pick up her 19-month-old sister and shield her behind some boxes. She was shouting to her mother to hide when LaGrone walked up to her and shot her in the head, killing her instantly. LaGrone was convicted of multiple counts of capital murder and was sentenced to death (Fort Worth, Texas).
*
LEACH: On January 18, 2004, Dan Leach murdered his 19-year-old girlfriend, Ashley Nicole Wilson, who was pregnant with his child. He strangled her and hung her body in her apartment. Her mother discovered her body, and the medical examiner ruled her death a suicide. Leach left a letter written by Ashley near her body, which said that she was despondent because she was pregnant and the father did not want to help raise the child. This was intended to make people think she had killed herself. After seeing Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" on March 7, 2004, Leach felt severe remorse for his murder, and confessed to it. He said that he killed Ashley because she was pregnant with his child and he did not want to be involved with her anymore or care for their child. Leach said "And so, after watching that movie, I was very emotional, and so I thought about the things I had done." Leach was charged with murder after his confession (Houston, Texas).
*
LETOUR: Michael Letour's live-in girlfriend, Jenny McMechan, was 36 weeks pregnant with his preborn child. She was just two weeks away from delivering a healthy baby boy. On New Year's Eve of 2001, Latour brutally shot her in the head and neck as she stood outside a friend's home in Plainfield (Plainfield, Connecticut).
#
LINGLE: On January 19, 1999, Harold R. Lingle and two of his friends drove to the home of 36-year-old Erin Vanderhoef, who was just days away from giving birth. Lingle drove Erin to a nearby grocery store to buy donuts with food stamps. While they were gone, Lingle's friends strangled Erin's children, eight-year old Darlene, ten-year old Chris, and eleven-year-old Jimmy. When Lingle brought Erin back to her home, the three strangled her with an electrical cord as well, and her full-term preborn baby died as a result. One of Lingle's friends kicked Erin in the head so hard that he had a limp for several days. This was the worst mass murder in the history of Springfield, Missouri. Lingle was convicted on five counts of first-degree murder (Springfield, Missouri).
*
LOOPER: Pro-abortionist Byron Looper, a Monterey, Tennessee county property assessor running against pro-life state Senator Tommy Burks, shot Burks in the left eye with a large-caliber handgun near a pumpkin patch where he planned to take schoolchildren on a hayride that same day. A witness said that Looper told him after the murder that "I did it, man, I did it! I killed that dude!" (Monterey, Tennessee).
*
LUSTER: On January 28, 2003, Aaron Luster and his girlfriend, Christine Karcher, who was seven months pregnant, began arguing in his car as they drove down a road near the Pittsburgh International Airport. Luster attempted to strangle Christine, then pushed her out of the moving vehicle. She fell to the pavement, and was immediately struck by a following car. When police officers arrived at the scene, they found Christine's mangled body. During Luster's trial, jurors heard Christine's frantic cell phone call for help just nine minutes before she died. Luster's voice, encouraging her to jump from the moving car, was clearly audible. On March 26, 2004, a jury found Luster guilty of two counts of murder, one for Christine and one for her viable preborn baby (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).
*
MACGUIRE: Roger MacGuire shot his ex-wife, Susan MacGuire, to death in January 2001. He was angry about her pregnancy by her fiance and deliberately aimed at her unborn child. He was tried and convicted of two counts of murder (Salt Lake City, Utah).
*
MARSHALL: Tjane Charmeise Marshall's girlfriend, Shameka Fludd, was already the mother of two children, and was four to five months pregnant with his child. Marshall did not want his baby. He said that the unborn child would "ruin his life" and that "he was going to do something about it." He certainly followed up on his threat. In May 2003, Marshall borrowed a rental car from a friend, drove to Fludd's apartment, where he shot her in the head, killing her instantly (Baltimore, Maryland).
*
MCBEATH: Roger Lee McBeath killed his former girlfriend, Ashley Lyons, who was 5-1/2 months pregnant with a preborn baby boy she had already named Landon. He shot her in the head three times with a handgun to make absolutely sure she was dead. Ashley kept a journal for her little boy. On October 31, 2003, she wrote "Your father wanted me to have an abortion. Your father told me he was going to commit suicide, that you would ruin his life." McBeath was charged with first-degree murder (Lexington, Kentucky).
#
MCGRORY: Michael G. McGrory and Matthew Eshbach had committed many acts of armed robbery, and operated an armed robbery "ring." In November 2002, McGrory and Eshbach went to the home of Kerry Schadler, 21, and his 20-year-old wife, Katherine, who was 20 weeks pregnant, in order to threaten them, because they knew about the robbery gang. McGrory and Eshbach tied up the Schadlers and forced them at knifepoint into McGrory's vehicle. After driving some distance, McGrory pulled Kerry Schadler out of the car and squeezed his neck until "his body went limp," Carroll said. Returning to the car, McGrory began to look for a place to unload the body. He stopped the car, put his arm around Katherine Schadler and started to strangle her; Eshbach finished murdering her. Then they dumped the bodies in Tow Path Park in East Coventry Township (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania).
*
MELNICK: In May 1990, abortionist Joseph Melnick was convicted of allowing a viable and healthy 32-week baby girl, who weighed 3 pounds and 9 ounces, to die by ordering `no care' to be given her after she survived his botched third-trimester abortion attempt. The aborted girl was only 13 years old (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania).
*
MESHACK: Teshibra Bell, who was only 15 years old, met a man at a convenience store in Southern Dallas. The man, pro-abortionist Shannon Meshack, was 25 years old. She eventually began to have sex with him. In June 2003, Teshibra was five months pregnant with Meshack's baby. She was looking forward to having the child, but Meshack did not want a child. So he strangled Teshibra. He then dragged her body into his back yard, piled up some debris, and tried to burn her (Dallas, Texas).
#
MINERD: In January 1999, Joseph P. Minerd firebombed Deana Mitts' Connellsville townhouse, which killed Mitts, her 3-year-old daughter Kayla, and her unborn child. He did this since co-workers refused to help him use a stun gun to shock Deana into a miscarriage of his child. Witnesses heard Deana screaming in agony after the explosion, and saw her engulfed in flames "like a human torch." Three-year-old Kayla was so badly burned in the fire that her bones fractured from the heat. United States District Attorney Leo Dillon said "It's hard to imagine more anguish than Deana and Kayla Mitts endured before they died." Minerd was sentenced to life in prison for the murders and was prosecuted under the same law used to convict Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).
*
MONTALVO: Abortionist Angel Acevado Montalvo killed at least two women during the time period 1984-1988 and was prosecuted for one of the botched abortions. The day after he was found guilty in trial, he was back scheduling illegal abortions for women in Puerto Rico (San Juan, Puerto Rico).
*
MYERS, CALVIN: On December 3, 1994, Calvin Shane Myers, his pregnant ex-girlfriend, Irene Christensen, and another man, Steven Paul Howard, were driving toward Park City shortly after midnight in heavy snow. They came upon an unplowed road, and the three got out and walked toward Rockport Reservoir State Park. Myers and Christensen embraced, and then Myers stabbed her at least 12 times with a rusty 4 1/2-inch hunting blade. The two men then left the area, leaving Christensen in a snowbank. Her frozen body was found by a snowmobiler two weeks later. Myers confessed to the crime and was charged with two counts of murder. In February 1996, pled guilty to one count of capital murder (Salt Lake City, Utah).
*
MYERS, TIFANY: On January 20, 2000, Tifany Ann Myers, who was baby-sitting for 21-month-old Joel Vasquez, shook him and slammed him to the floor, causing his death, when he would not stop crying. Myers was charged with first-degree murder. She filed a notice of diminished responsibility, alleging that an abortion she had had just two days before the incident exacerbated her preexisting depression. As a result, her mental state was "greatly compromised" (Des Moines, Iowa).
#
NIEVES: After mailing suicide notes to both of her ex-husbands, Sandi Dawn Nieves told her four young daughters that they were going to sleep in the kitchen in a kind of "slumber party." She bedded the girls down comfortably. Then Nieves, who had just had an abortion, set fires at several points throughout the house to make sure that her little daughters could not escape. All of them burned to death in the fire (Los Angeles, California).
*
PARR: LaMarr Parr of Massillon, Ohio, was charged with the September 16, 2000 fatal stabbing of his ex-girlfriend, Jean K. Toles, and the killing of her 2-1/2-month-old preborn child. She wanted the baby and he wanted her to get an abortion. After he killed her, Parr dumped her body in a ditch (Canton, Ohio).
*
PECK: In October 1995, Joseph Peck beat and murdered his 25-year-old wife Jennifer, who was four months pregnant, because she refused to have an abortion. He stuffed her body into the trunk of her car at the Clique Lounge on North Dale Mabry. Homicide detective Greg Stout said that "We believe that because his wife had become pregnant and would not get an abortion, that he began making threats to her." He was indicted on first-degree murder charges by a Hillsborough County grand jury (Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida).
*
PERRY: Jake Perry and his girlfriend, Patricia Smith, were expecting a child. In November 2002, Perry grabbed Patricia by her hair, slapped her, punched her and jabbed her in the stomach, head, arms and legs. He threw her into a box of plates, and both her legs began to bleed from cuts she received. Perry finally agreed to take her to the hospital to treat her injuries, but first he demonstrated his touching concern for her safety by forcing her to drive him to his mother's house, where he stole an amplifier. Then he had her drive him across town so he could sell it and buy crack cocaine. Smith miscarried, and the next day Perry was charged with the reckless homicide of an unborn child, among many other charges (Milwaukee, Wisconsin).
*
PINKSTON: On December 18, 2003, James "Herc" Pinkston beat up his pregnant girlfriend Toni Koonce at his apartment. Five days after the beating, doctors at Magee Women's Hospital in Pittsburgh performed emergency surgery on Toni, because the embryonic membranes had ruptured and the leaking fluid could have resulted in a fatal infection which might have killed her. Her preborn baby died during the surgery. Pinkston was charged with criminal homicide for the attack (Pittsburgh, Pennsyvania).
*
PONDER: Jerold L. Ponder and Zaneta Browne were carrying on an affair, and Browne was 14 to 15 weeks pregnant with boy and girl twins by Ponder. Ponder urged Browne to get an abortion, but she refused. So, on July 14, 2002, Ponder and his wife Keya shot Browne, a 29-year-old Rochester mother of three, in the face and back of the head on land owned by Jerold Ponder's family in rural Orleans County (Rochester, New York).
*
REYNOLDS: Oklahoma City Abortionist Joe Bills Reynolds performed breast implants, a hysterectomy, and numerous liposuction procedures on his wife. He tried to collect $500,000 on his wife's life insurance after she bled to death after he opened a two-foot long incision in her abdomen, ostensibly for liposuction, on September 7, 1989. Reynolds would not allow paramedics to aid her until he had finished stapling the huge incision. He told his wife's father that she was assisting in surgery and just "fell dead." The abortionist was found guilty of second-degree manslaughter. The punishment the abortionist received for carelessly killing his own wife? A one dollar fine! (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma).
*
RINGER: Tony Ringer's girlfriend, Cassandra Betts, was pregnant by him, and he did not want the baby because he wanted to marry another woman. So, in December 2000, he shot her in the head as she sat in her car, killing her and her 6-week old preborn child, with Betts' seven-year-old daughter watching from the back seat. Ringer pleaded guilty to two counts of voluntary manslaughter (Cincinnati, Ohio).
*
RIVERA: Lawrence Rivera of Barstow, California, killed his pregnant girlfriend, Kristina Garcia, in May 2002. Rivera had a previous manslaughter conviction on his record, and was also implicated but never charged in the manslaughter death of his live-in girlfriend's daughter in Germany in 1998. His former wife testified that "if I didn't get an abortion that he would pull it out of my stomach." Rivera is still at large (Barstow, California).
*
ROBINSON: 38-year old Kevin Robinson repeatedly stabbed and killed 15-year-old Daphne Sulk in November 1997 because he had gotten her pregnant, and she refused to get an abortion. Authorities found Sulk's frozen body at a highway rest stop. In December 1998, Robinson was convicted of murder (Laramie, Wyoming).
*
SHERMAN: Abortionist Robert Sherman killed 16-year old Carmen Rita McDowell by intentionally performing an incomplete second-trimester abortion upon her in March 1975, so he could collect additional fees. The girl collapsed and was taken to a hospital, where emergency treatment removed a mangled preborn child. She died the next day from a septic abortion. The abortionist was paroled after 22 months in prison. His indictment said that he had a "malicious interest in making more money, cutting his costs and saving his time in disregard for the life and health of his patients." After he was paroled, he began doing abortions again in Massachusetts and Virginia (Washington, D.C.).
*
SHOWERY: During an April 1984 abortion, Raymond Showery tore Mickey Apodaca's uterus and severed her uterine artery. She hemorrhaged for two hours before Showery would allow her transfer to a nearby hospital. She bled to death during emergency surgery to remove her uterus. The abortionist was indicted for manslaughter. Amazingly, while Showery was in jail, six pro-abortion women protested in Showery's defense outside the courthouse, asserting that Showery "is a good man who helps the poor." He performed this abortion while still on bail pending appeal of his conviction for murder in the case of a late-term aborted baby (weighing five pounds) who survived his 1979 abortion attempt. Showery deliberately drowned the viable baby. Showery was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Showery is an Adolph Hitler aficionado who owns an arsenal of guns and reads voraciously about Hitler. Showery said that "Hitler was one of the most misunderstood men in history. He was really a great man" (El Paso, Texas).
*
SMITH, ALFRED: A jury found pro-abortionist Alfred E. Smith guilty of second-degree murder in the death of his ex-girlfriend Denna Moody. Smith killed Moody in April 1997 because she refused to abort their preborn child. Her charred body was found in her burned car near the Van Nuys Amtrak station (Los Angeles, California).
*
SMITH, NATHANIEL: Nathaniel Dee Smith killed his 21-week pregnant girlfriend Lorena Rivera because she refused to have an abortion and he didn't want to pay child support. He beat her and shot her twice, then buried her body in a garbage bag in a shallow grave. Smith was charged with first-degree murder in Rivera's death and manslaughter in the death of their unborn child. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma).
#
STEELE: Sean Steele had impregnated his 15-year old girlfriend, Barbara Watkins, and she was seven months pregnant. Steele pressured her to have an abortion, but she refused. So Steele told Barbara that they were going to buy baby clothes. Instead, he lured her to a wooded area, smashed her with a rock, stabbed her repeatedly with a broken beer bottle, and finally strangled her and left her body in the woods. He confessed to the killing after construction workers found Watkins' decomposed body in a wooded ravine (Cincinnati, Ohio).
*
STEIR: Abortionist Bruce Steir was charged with murder after Sharon Hamptlon bled to death after Steir ignored her perforated uterus during a December 1996 abortion. Showing a callous and total disregard for the safety of women, pro-abortionists raised money for Steir's defense on the Internet, encouraged their friends to put pressure on elected officials and the California Medical Board, and urged the Riverside County prosecutor to drop the charges (Los Angeles, California).
*
STUART: Jerry Lynn Stuart and his live-in girlfriend, April Renee Greer, were expecting a baby. In fact, April was eight and a half months pregnant, and just days away from delivering her child. But Stuart did not want the child. So he solved his problem by beating April to death, chopping up her body, and stuffing the pieces of her and her near-term preborn baby into a trash can sealed with duct tape (Burlington, North Carolina).
*
TAN YEN: In January 1989, abortionist Connie Tan Yen was charged with infanticide after allowing a third-trimester aborted baby to die of deliberate neglect (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania).
*
TARVER: Paul A. Tarver II's girlfriend, Keisha Lewis, was three months pregnant with his preborn child, which he did not want. So he hired a gunman to shoot Keisha dead. The gunman deliberately aimed for Keisha's abdoment, but failed to kill her, although her preborn baby died in the attack. In July 2002, Tarver was indicted by a grand jury and was charged with complicity to commit aggravated murder. The gunman was charged with aggravated murder (Canton, Ohio).
*
THOMAS: Ronnie Thomas beat his pregnant girlfriend with a steering wheel security locking device and then threw the screaming woman from an overpass onto an expressway. She was immediately killed, either by the impact of dropping onto the pavement, or by one of several vehicles that struck her -- including a semi truck (Crown Point, Indiana).
*
UNKNOWN ABORTIONIST: Nurse witnesses testified that an unnamed abortionist from San Vicente Hospital, California, aborted a 7-month old preborn baby live. Some time later, he noticed that the baby was still moving, and drowned the little child in a vat of formaldehyde (Los Angeles, California).
*
VILLAGOMEZ: In October 2002, after an argument in which he demanded that she have an abortion, Jesus Villagomez stabbed his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach. The stab wound resulted in the death of her 18-week-old unborn child (Las Vegas, Nevada).
*
WADDILL: In March 1977, abortionist William Waddill, Jr. committed a third-trimester abortion saline abortion and delivered alive a viable baby girl, whom he then strangled to death. This was the second time he had been charged with infanticide (Los Angeles, California).
#
WALRADT: In September 1999, Brodie Edric Walradt raped, tortured and murdered Beth Kennard, who was near-term and had already named her preborn baby Alexis Ann. She had refused his demands to have an abortion. He suffocated her and bludgeoned her with a log. Wadradt received a life sentence for his crimes (Seattle, Washington).
#
WARD: Lavern Ward of Chicago was upset that his girlfriend Debra Evans was pregnant with his child and would not consent to getting an abortion. So, in November 1995, he shot her in the head and killed her. Then he stabbed Evan's ten-year old daughter in the neck and killed her. Finally, he hacked the unborn child out of Debra's body. He then abducted her seven-year old son Joshua and stabbed him to death. Ward was convicted of three counts of murder, two counts of kidnaping and one of armed robbery for looting the home (Chicago, Illinois).
#
WIEDEMAN: 16-year old Stephanie Nicole Burnett of Athens, Georgia, told her boyfriend, Matthew John Wiedeman, that she was pregnant. He demanded that she have an abortion, and she refused. So, in April 2002, Wiedeman attacked her from behind with a heavy solid steel barbell, while a friend, Raymond Soto, stabbed her with a long-bladed knife. Deputy Coroner Grover Tuten said "I think it's one of the most gruesome [murders] I've ever seen." A Richmond County grand jury indicted Wiedeman and Soto on charges of malice murder (Athens, Georgia).
*
WILCOTT: On June 8, 2002, at a graduation party, pro-abortionist Corinne Wilcott sneaked up behind Sheena Carson, who was 15 weeks pregnant, dragged her to the ground by her hair, punched her in the face, and kicked her repeatedly in the side, shouting "I hope the bastard dies! I told you I was going to get you for sleeping with Kareem!" [Wilcott's husband]. An autopsy revealed that Sheena's unborn child died four days later from blunt-force trauma to the mother's placenta. During the trial, medical experts testified that Sheena's unborn child suffocated in her womb because a blow broke the life-giving bloodlines that connected the child to his mother. Wilcott was found guilty of third-degree murder (Erie, Pennsylvania).
#
WILSON: Pro-abortionist Garrett Wilson began to sexually molest 12-year-old Debbie Oliver, and emotionally browbeat her into having at least four abortions before she was 15 years old. He finally married her in 1980 when she could not have another abortion because she was too far along. Baby Brandi Jean was born shortly after the marriage. Wilson took out extensive life insurance policies on the baby girl and then smothered her to death when she was just two months old. He took the resulting $40,000 settlement and bought a brand-new Pontiac Trans Am. Wilson married Missy Anastasi in March 1986, and, in March 1987, they had a child, Garrett Michael. Wilson bought $150,000 of life insurance on the five-month-old baby and then smothered him to death. In July 1999, a jury took just two hours to find him guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Garrett Michael, and he received a sentence of life in prison without parole (Washington, DC).

Frank Schaeffer, will you PLEASE shut up! (part 2)

In a response to my last blog entry on Facebook, a friend asks:

Q:-- It looks like to me that each person has just resorted to demeaning the others and calling names. Is this what we have come to?

A:-- A polemic is a harsh, strongly worded response to an entrenched viewpoint. It’s sometimes used as a way of eliciting a response when an opponent will not offer a defense. A polemic is meant to stir controversy and get others to think about an issue they would rather accommodate or sweep under the rug. There is a time for tactful wisdom and tender love when dealing with Christians who have erred. But there is also a time to attack aggressively, because it is the only course that is left when compassion and understanding have failed to curb abuse and error.

For instance, Paul writes of the Judaizers, those who taught that converts from Gentile paganism still needed to be circumcised in order to partake of Jesus Christ’s New Covenant: "I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!" (Galatians 5:14). Here Paul makes a play on words saying that those who are behind the circumcision controversy ought to go the whole way and be done with it. In other words, “Go castrate yourself!” Paul doesn’t mean it literally, but he is using a clever pun. To be “cut off” in Greek (and English) is a way of saying to be “shut up.” He also recognizes that it is a waste of time trying to persuade some people. They just need to be cut off. It was not “unloving” for Paul to take this hard stance against heresy because he was protecting the peace and sanctity of young lambs who otherwise would be savaged by wolves if their error was allowed to roam free among the churches of Galatia.

Paul warns in the next breath about divisions. “But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!” (Galatians 5:15). One could be misled by this. If Paul wants unity in the church, then why does he use such rough language to describe the Judaizers? Isn’t this fostering disunity? First, Paul had already spent enough time confronting these people. Second, doctrine offends; orthodoxy divides. Today’s pietistic Christians often want doctrinal orthodoxy without offense or division – but ironically, this is what doctrine is meant to do. Truth is the dividing line against all that is false. On the other hand, we can have tremendous doctrinal unity and covenant love with other Christians if we simply focus on creedal orthodoxy as we discuss our differences. As you may not know, I’ve written on this in my e-book, Why Creeds and Confessions?

Irenaeus, Tertullian and Martin Luther were just a few of the most notorious Christian polemicists in confronting heresy. Much of their harsher language is actually satire and parody. It’s meant to be tongue in cheek. But it is only funny if you understand the specific references, such as when Irenaeus in the second century catalogs the pantheon of Gnostic “aeons” with the names: Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, Cucumber, Melon. This is more along the lines of a Monty Python sketch than what is found in the usual patristic apology – if you get the joke, that is.

This tactic is often misunderstood by today’s Christians. For instance, I found myself in tears of laughter reading Gary North’s paper aloud to friends when it first came out. It’s so funny because it is so true. However, I am sure many found it harsh and offensive. Likewise, today’s Neo-Gnostics tend to portray Ireneaus as an intolerant boor. However, I like to think that Paul, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Luther and their ilk were a barrel of laughs to be around, unless you were promoting heresy in their church, that is.

When Gary first published his position paper on blasphemy excoriating the younger Schaeffer for his idiocy, Frank was still sought after as a speaker raising money for crisis pregnancy centers. (I am sure he still advocates CPCs, but I don’t know how many pro-lifers would want to hear him now.) I remember thinking back in the early 1990s that it was okay for Frank to raise funds to help save babies, despite his defection from Protestantism to Eastern Orthodoxy. I too wondered if maybe Gary was being a bit too harsh even if it was in good fun. Now that Frank argues for legalized abortion and homosexual marriage, I think it was right on the mark. It’s merely the weakness of his deficient theology brought to a rigorously logical conclusion. Thankfully, most Christians are not that consistent. I’ll comment more on that in part three.

Polemics is also good for provoking a first stage of dialog. It is in one sense “guerilla warfare” that is meant to flush out and identify the enemy in order to engage him in a thesis-antithesis debate. I don’t expect to actually flush out Frank Schaeffer himself. He has bigger fish to fry than to deal with the likes of me. (But who knows?) What I hope to do is to categorize and critique his most egregious errors. And since there is nothing new under the sun, the reader will see that the same errors are repeated by other religious liberals such as Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, Bill Hybels and Bill Moyers. Such postmodernist errors are also endemic in the Contemplative/Emerging Church movement.

Ironically, Frank Schaeffer's entire style continues to be polemics. He often doesn't know what he is talking about – and as the son of a famous theologian he has no excuse for his ignorance. In part three, I’ll outline some of Frank’s fallacies, which are all the more outrageous once you understand that he was steeped in doctrinal orthodoxy for many years.

Is Frank Schaeffer really a danger to anyone but himself?

Although few conservative Christians at this point take Frank Schaeffer seriously, there is the danger that some will give credence to his renunciation of his conservative political activism because it is coupled with the accusation that his parents, Francis and Edith Schaeffer, were insane, dysfunctional, abusive hypocrites.

I am also persuaded that Frank doesn’t mean a lot of what he says to be taken seriously. He is just trying to rile us up. And it’s always done with a condescending postmodernist know-it-all sneer. His first line of argument is ad hominem, strawman fallacy, and non-sequitur. Unfortunately, his arrogance is mistaken for real conviction by sympathetic listeners on the left. They erroneously believe he is a voice of reason crying in the evangelical wilderness, a true convert to progressive thought, one whom Jesus would approve. He complains that few on the left understand the Christian right. Only he does, because he was one of them. In fact, he helped found the Christian Right, he claims. Then he proceeds to get it all wrong. As Gary North points out, this was unnerving even when he was supposedly “on our side.” It is better in one way that he is attacking us now instead, because he is a buffoon.

The way that Frank defends himself to sympathetic listeners is to retreat into theoretical pluralism, which is that Kantian abomination that proposes that since the universe is chaotic by nature and our minds ill-equipped to know truth, then all knowledge is at best a theory or a model, but we can never know anything to be absolutely true. Theoretical pluralism is something that Frank Schaeffer would deny, but the self-deception of the human heart is something no man can fathom. Consider the following points.

First, instead of giving a reasoned rebuttal to evangelical theology and politics, he attacks the character flaws of his well-known family and acquaintances (even though these are unquantifiable, i.e., his parents were “crazy,” Billy Graham is a “weird” man, etc.) as if this negates their positions. Anyone who knows anything about theology, philosophy or history can see that he is factually challenged. He simply makes things up as he goes along regardless of how wrong it is. If this is not purposeful, then he is just stupid. And since Frank is reputedly quite brilliant, then he must be doing it on purpose or else he's psychologically unbalanced. Or perhaps both?

Second, Frank writes a character assassination of his deceased father and 95-year-old mother Edith, who once confessed to Os Guiness that she even doesn't read her son’s writings anymore because it just makes her cry. Think about it: Would you attack your mother in a book while admitting that she prayed for you every day of your life since you were born? Frank dishonors his parents by portraying them in their most dysfunctional moments. He defends it by saying in effect, “We are all dysfunctional. I am just doing Christians a service by helping them see it.”

Third, Frank claims in an interview with the Rutherford Institute that those who were there know his charges about his parents being abusive toward each are true.

Living in the community of L’Abri with people in our house and other workers coming and going, there are plenty of people walking around the world today who either heard or saw things that would make them draw that conclusion. That was actually not much of a secret.

It’s easy enough to rebut him as Os Guiness does in a 2008 Christianity Today article.

I challenge this central charge of Frank's with everything in me. I and many of my closest friends, who knew the Schaeffers well, are certain beyond a shadow of doubt that they would challenge it too. Defenders of truth to others, Francis and Edith Schaeffer were people of truth themselves. For six years I was as close to Frank as anyone outside his own family, and probably closer than many in his family. I was his best man at his wedding.

Os Guiness counters by saying in effect, “I was there. I was one of Frank’s mentors. And I know he is lying.” And then he gives a quantifiable example of one of his lies.

… he bucked at all formal education and serious tutoring, and his claim that he then received a "'great books' British university-level literature course" comes as quite a surprise to his tutor.

Fourth, when Frank loses ground due to confounding facts, he resorts to values-relativism. He'll go on TV and defend same sex marriage. Then he’ll defend his stance later in another interview saying that homosexuals who want to be married are no worse than adulterers who want to stay in the ministry.

How do we respond?

The best way to deal with such relativism is to be irreverent, sarcastic and mocking. To Frank, the gift of language is a weapon by which to deliver an impressive front of intellectualism. In reality, it is just a smokescreen. There is little of real substance behind it. He attacks for no reason, retreats for a few months or a few years, then appears again to change subject just to keep attacking. He is the perpetual guerilla, never able to form a lasting front of resistance. And most of the time, it’s difficult to see who he is fighting. Perhaps he is really fighting himself?

If someone, such as Os Guiness, points out proof that Frank is a hypocrite for accusing the Christian right for lying when he's a liar, he already has a retort handy, “Well, we’re all hypocrites.” Then he’ll say that there is no sin that is worse than any other, pride, lust, sodomy, adultery and fornication are all equally bad.

Well, no we're not all hypocrites. We are not all liars either. It’s true that we are all sinners, but all sin is not equally bad. This is due to a faulty interpretation of James 2:10.

“For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God’s laws.”

The point here of course is that since no one has kept the whole law, no one can be justified by the law. We are justified by faith; but “faith without works is dead” (James 2:20). In other words, it is not true faith if on one hand we continue to justify ourselves by the law, or if we use grace as an excuse to continue in sin. The meaning is here not that all sin is equally bad. There are no “Christian homosexuals; Christian abortionists; Christian fornicators,” etc. Christians are sinners saved by grace.

“But those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21).

Of course, Frank is only a relativist when he's defending his point of view against reason, evidence and logic. You can’t really ever win an argument with a relativist. All you can do is expose his worldview as nonsense. My goal here isn’t to portray the man as a traitor to the pro-life movement or to vilify him. The goal is to show the danger of his way of thinking because it is all too readily swallowed by a weak American Christian culture that is easily seduced by postmodernism in the form of irrational appeals to emotion.

I believe that Frank still cares more about the abortion issue than most Christians. It affects him on a deeply emotional level, but he is completely unprincipled. He says he is pro-life, but then says abortion should be legal. He holds forth the pro-choice apologetic of the Clintons: Abortion is a necessary evil; so let’s work to make it safe, legal and rare. He honestly believes that by attacking the pro-life movement’s errors (and I actually agree with some of what he says) he can gain the trust of the left and persuade them to be more reasonable in order to moderate their pro-abortion stance.

What we’ve tried up until now hasn’t worked, he reasons. It is now time to try finding common ground with the pro-choice advocates. Abortion is always going to be legal, so let’s work with the abortion advocates to reduce the number of abortions.

So he is seeking dialogue with the left to try to do some good. But in every case, finding common ground with the death industry is a false premise. He is actually sniping at his allies and comforting the enemy. And the moment he stands for truth his newfound friends will turn on him.

To court liberal commentators such as Rachel Maddow as though she were a sister in the Lord is abominable. Maddow openly mocks everything that is good and holy with a wry smirk out of one side of her face. In fact, he speaks to her as though she were more of a true Christian than those who actively oppose abortion. If Frank Schaeffer’s attempt to speak as an authority on moral issues on the Rachel Maddow show wasn’t so scarily bizarre and surreal, it would be funny. In fact, it should be seen as a new genre of political theater, that of “comic treachery.”

The best defense against this error is a good offense. You don't win by dialoging with these people. You win by attacking their nonsense aggressively with scorn and mockery. And that is what I intend to do.

Frank Schaeffer, will you PLEASE shut up! (part 1)

One of my favorite polemics of all time is a piece by Dr. Gary North, Franky Schaeffer, Please Shut Up! (no copyright; reprint anywhere), a March 1992 postion paper on blasphemy published by the Institute for Christian Economics (ICE). You won't find the PDF file easily on a Google search, so I've posted the correct link above.

In the paper, Gary takes issue with Franky Schaeffer’s bad theology. Schaeffer apparently was appalled at the wares being hawked by Christian t-shirt companies at a book-sellers conference he attended. According to Franky (who now goes by just “Frank”) those who produce these schlocky evangelical icons are somehow guilty of "blasphemy." Gary North, in his inimitable style, takes Frank to the woodshed. The writings of his father, Dr. Francis Schaeffer, were that of a momumental genius who made an important early contribution to both the burgeoning Christian Reconstructionist movement and the so-called "Religious Right." Gary rightly points out though that Schaeffer Sr. stopped short of being postmillennial and theonomic. Further, the publishers of Schaeffer's complete theological works edited out some of his Calvinistic doctrines that they thought would be distasteful to their readers. (But this is just a rough and dirty synopsis of the paper. To read it all, follow the above link.)

Frank Schaeffer is a product of this inconsistent theology. Afraid to go "too far" into the austerity of Puritanism, he swung toward Eastern Orthodoxy around 1990. Now 20 years later, he's done another about face and has even renounced his father's pro-life views. He states that he’s personally against abortion, but it should be legal. We recently saw him on the Rachel Maddow show, claiming, “And when you look at what happened to Dr. Tiller, there is a direct line connecting the rhetoric that I was part of as a young man, and this murder.”

On his website, he substitutes personal attacks for reasoned argument. Those who oppose government imposed health care are "the gun-toting fringe." He speaks with mock authority on the motivation of pro-life movement as a "psychological sickness that is the basis of the Religious right's power to delude other people who are also needy and unstable."

He’s now making the news talk show rounds in an attempt to promote his new book claiming that we who work to repeal Roe v. Wade are evil Pharisees – even while he pontificates on why Roe was a bad decision. To those who admire his father’s legacy, seeing Frank the younger go through such convolutions is not only infuriating, but also dizzying.

I'll comment more on this in part 2, but here is a snippet from Gary North. Reading this, keep in mind that it was written prior to Frank Schaeffer’s slide into complete apostasy. It turns out that Gary North is a prophet.

In the fall of 1984, Franky cancelled all his future Christian audience speaking engagements, and he disbanded his own Christian Activist tabloid newspaper a few months later. He sold the tabloid’s mailing list and then disappeared from the evangelical scene. For a while, anyway. Franky simply could not sustain the theological battle without the inspiring presence of his father and without biblical law.

He goes away periodically, but he refuses to stay away. This is our problem. He has nothing positive to show for the last fifteen years of his on-again, off-again tantrums, nothing of quality to bring to the table, no published theory of Christian aesthetics, no plan of action, and no money. But he reappears periodically to perform his routine, which can be best described as whining for artistic relevance. Each performance gets more frivolous, and each one is directed not at the increasingly decadent humanist culture of our day, but at the tentative steps of evangelicals to respond, a century late, to the enormous threat of a now visibly debauched humanism.

Ironically, Franky’s father was the primary public literary figure in the appearance of the Christian cultural resistance movement. But Franky spends his time these days battling what he regards as the Philistines of fundamentalism rather than the Assyrians of humanism. Fundamentalists do not meet his standards, he tells us. Not his theological standards – he has none to speak of – but his artistic standards.

This, from a washed-up producer-director of an R-rated teenage violence film. “Physician, heal thyself!”

Freddy and Franky

There is a stupid horror movie series, enormously profitable, called Nightmare on Elm Street. The character of the series, Freddy Krueger, is like Dracula: he keeps rising from the dead. He has a shriveled up face and wears gloves with long metal blades. The advertising for each sequel announces, “He’s back!” Freddy Kruezer reminds me of Franky Schaeffer. We think he has gone, but he keeps coming back.

I think of Freddy’s long, blade-like fingers. I think of Franky, always ready to point the finger. Yet when I visualize Franky as Freddy, it is always with his “pointing finger” firmly implanted in his right nostril. “Look at me, look at me, everyone; see how outrageous I can be this week!” No matter whose reputation suffers.

There comes a time for Christian social commentators to discuss theology. Franky refuses. There also comes a time for Christians to grow up. Franky refuses. For years, Franky Schaeffer has been playing the role of Young Turk. He is not aging gracefully.

Francis Schaeffer was a serious man who devoted his life to evangelism. His son has devoted his life to whining. Even when he is on the right side of an issue, he whines. Francis Schaeffer was a self-taught, self-disciplined scholar, not a Young Turk with bad manners. I do not recall that he ever called a fellow Christian a blasphemer.

Franky Schaeffer has capitalized on his father’s name and reputation for over fifteen years, squandering a valuable legacy. He has little spiritual or intellectual capital remaining. It is time for him to go out and look for a job.

In the 1960’s, liberal talk show host David Suskind bored America weekly with his five-hour interview shows on late night television. A humorist wrote a song about him: “David Suskind, Please Shut Up.” Someone needs to write one for Franky Schaeffer. It needn’t be funny.

I think I can at least give it a shot:

Sung to the Beatles’: Obla Dee Obla Da

Franky throws a tantrum in the marketplace
Says his father’s writings are a sham
Franky says to Rachel, “Girl I like your face.
Thanks for the free promotion, Maddow ma’am!”

Please shut up, please shut up, please shut up! NOW!
Franky Schaeffer, please shut up!

And so on. Maybe someone who is good at this sort of thing can help.

Ted Kennedy's Letter to the Pope

"I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path ... I have done my best." - Edward M. Kennedy

"If I ought, I can." - Pelagius, the 4th century heretic

"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ..." - The Apostle Paul, Romans 3:20-24

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." - The Apostle Paul, Ephesians 2:8-10

See Kennedy's full letter below and read Jill Stanek's comments on Kennedy's misrepresentation of free will vs. grace. It is tragic if this was his misunderstanding until the end. But it is even more tragic, if his representation of grace influences others to think, "If I ought, I can" with the "help of faith, try to right my path." It is tragic if we think that our justification before God lies with whether "I have done my best."

Scripture is clear that there is none righteous, none who is able even with the help of faith to right their own path. This justification comes as a free gift of grace and it is this grace that transforms us into keepers of the law. The inability to keep the law on such a fundamental issue as protecting innocent human life is due only to the lack of grace. It's a good lesson on why politicians who are professing Christians can't keep God's law on this one vital point.

Most Holy Father, I asked President Obama to personally hand-deliver this letter to you. As a man of deep faith himself, he understands how important my Roman Catholic faith is to me, and I am so deeply grateful to him.

I hope this letter finds you in good health. I pray that you have all of God's blessings as you lead our church and inspire our world during these challenging times. I am writing with deep humility to ask that you pray for me as my own health declines. I was diagnosed with brain cancer more than a year ago, and although I continue treatment, the disease is taking its toll on me. I am 77 years old and preparing for the next passage of life.

I have been blessed to be part of a wonderful family. And both of my parents, particularly my mother, kept our Catholic faith at the center of our lives. That gift of faith has sustained and nurtured and provided solace to me in the darkest hours. I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path.

I want you to know, Your Holiness, that in my nearly 50 years of elective office, I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor and open doors of economic opportunity. I have worked to welcome the immigrant, to fight discrimination and expand access to health care and education. I have opposed the death penalty and fought to end war. Those are the issues that have motivated me and have been the focus of my work as a United States senator.

I also want you to know that even though I am ill, I'm committed to doing everything I can to achieve access to health care for everyone in my country. This has been the political cause of my life. I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field and I'll continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone.

I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith. I continue to pray for God's blessings on you and on our church and would be most thankful for your prayers for me.

The Abortion Matrix: Abortion in Biblical Perspective

Except for an interview and a dramatic vignette still to be added, this is the final version of chapter two of The Abortion Matrix.

An investigation into the writings of Jay Rogers (a video)

http://akaariesashkuff.com/akaBlog/?p=134

Amazingly, this is an investigative video report, fairly well-done, that critiques one of my articles on Witchcraft and Abortion. In the video, the videographer claims he came to Melbourne to investigate the claims of my articles. I am fascinated by lengths to which people will go who are fascinated by me.

My offensive articles are here:

http://www.forerunner.com/champion/X0038.html

Due to a misquote in the field, the international director of the evangelical Forerunner.com was referred to as “Jay Roberts” in Scene 3 of the Beyond Logic Network’s experimental film series. The correct spelling of his name is “Jay Rogers.” We apologize for any misrepresentation or confusion this may have caused. The original summary of this episode reads as such: Following yet another lead he had picked up during his work with the preachers in Turlington Plaza, [Aries] Ashkuff investigates a so-called “witch cult” that has taken root in Palm Bay, and visits the private residence of their high priest.

BTW: I finished watching Lake of Fire and in it Pat Windle is seen standing in front of my house claiming (not naming names of course) that I got a voyeuristic sexual thrill out of watching women come to get abortions because I never had had sex myself -- (or maybe she was talking about someone else?)

Of course, that is nothing new. It was one of Pat's favorite temper tantrum talking points. But it was kind of surreal to see my house in the background and her pointing at it.

My response: These people can say whatever they want, just as long as they spell my name right!

The Wrath of Angels & Exposing Late Term Abortion

A video produced by Eric Holmberg and Vorthos Forum (a/k/a The Apologetics Group, Reel to Real Ministries) got the attention of the Margaret Sanger Papers Collection website at New York University.

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/sightings/index.html

Margaret Sanger: Solid as Barack

Sanger’s name has cropped up in several right wing blogs that attacked Barack Obama for his support of a woman’s right to choose. For instance, on Aug. 24, 2008 in Human Events Online, Senator Obama was condemned for opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama, who viewed this as an anti-abortion rights law, recognized that doctors already have a legal and ethical obligation to preserve life in the rare instance when a baby survives an abortion procedure. Nevertheless, the columnist warned “somewhere in hell, Margaret Sanger is filling out her absentee ballot.” Similar attacks on Sanger and Obama appear in a YouTube video that links them to a plot to eradicate the black race through abortion www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI67MuPwsX0, and yet another piece on black genocide.

Another of the videos produced by Vorthos Forum, "A Tale of Two Babies," points out that Obama did not vote for Illinois' version of the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" because he feared it could be used to curtail abortion rights. The struggle to outlaw all late term abortions of viable infants ought to be the next step in the pro-life movement's focus.



I am now reading the book, Wrath of Angels, which chronicles how the pro-life street activist movement branched off the political lobbyists. The book then focuses on the so-called "violent fringe" of the pro-life movement. Having known some of the people in the book personally, I see not everything is accurate. But the book reads like a novel and is interesting if you can read between the lines of two "pro-choice" journalists attempting to be objective. (I recommend the book because it has some good insights that I agree with and I'll be posting a review later on.)

Many pro-lifers saw the reality that Roe v. Wade was far too sweeping a measure of judicial activism. It had to be repealed either by stacking the court with constructionist justices or with a constitutional amendment.

They saw that we do need to dramatically change public opinion first. To get a human life amendment to the Constitution was and still is too big of a step. Baby steps need to be taken. Exposing late-term abortion is a key first step. Even though it's only two or three percent of all abortions, the legal victory is not what is important. It is getting the vast majority of the public to see the humanity of a viable child and to provoke outrage at the legalized killing of these little ones. Right now most are in the dark. Many think it is already illegal. Others cite the "danger to the life and health of the mother" exception. We heard this lie in many of Dr. George Tiller's eulogies, for instance. However, a viable baby never needs to be aborted. In the case of a danger to the life of the mother, the baby simply needs to be delivered (by c-section if necessary) and cared for. In the vast majority of cases, these little ones can be saved.

But according to Planned Parenthood's research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, are the list of reasons women had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

Dr. Tiller, of course, was lauded as a saint by abortion rights advocates because of all the women's lives he saved. But according to Planned Parenthood's own statistics, this simply isn't the case.

In the second chapter of Wrath of Angels, "The Struggle for Roe," the authors explain how prior to 1973 some states had loopholes in their restrictive abortion laws to allow for the "mental health of the mother" to be an exception. All that was needed case of the "danger to a mother's life or health"

The book also points out that the original language of Roe v. Wade allowed abortion in cases of the danger to the health and life of the mother, rape or incest in the the first trimester of pregnancy; and danger to the health and life of the mother in the second trimester. A key component of allowing this was the "right to privacy." During the oral arguments, Sarah Weddington conceded that if the humanity of the child could be established she would have no case.

Doe v. Bolton then extended the right to be defined as a private decision between a woman and her doctor under the protection for the "right to privacy." This was the slippery slope leading over the cliff to what almost all now consider to be infanticide. At this point, there was assured a "right to abortion" through all nine months in any case in which the doctor and the woman decided that her health dictated she could not bear a child. Mental health and "thoughts of suicide" are often cited, for instance.

We need to consider that the so-called exceptions to abortion (rape, incest, the health of the mother) are accepted even by many so-called pro-life advocates such as Sean Hannity and John McCain.

Many "pro-life" politicians and pundits are actually pro-Roe, but merely anti-Doe. Their argument is that these exceptions are no more than two or three percent of all abortions.

"Wouldn't we would gladly take that victory than none at all?"

Or so the argument goes. However, it is a defensive tack that cannot result in a reversal of our current culture of death. The abortion matrix needs to be exposed from the other extreme two or three percent -- those infants who are killed after viability (now at about 22 to 24 weeks). On the surface, it seems too small a victory to pursue. However, securing the right to life for any unborn infant can ultimately reverse Roe at least back to it's original intent. We must do that by establishing in the public consciousness the humanity of these late-term babies that are being slaughtered by the thousands each year.

If we can do that we have a secured beachhead and ultimately we may end up saving millions.

Late-term Abortionist Pendergraft Loses License Suspension Appeal

I've collected this from various pro-life news sources. No local news source in the Orlando area has yet covered the story.

- Jay Rogers

KISSIMMEE, Florida (The Forerunner) — Late-term abortionist James Scott Pendergraft III has lost his appeal of the suspension of his medical license for committing illegal third-trimester abortions. The suspension issued by the Florida Medical Board remains valid and in effect.

In an opinion filed yesterday, the Florida District Court of Appeals rejected all of Pendergraft’s arguments and stated that they “found no reversible error” in the Board’s suspension order.

The opinion further stated:

“Dr. Pendergraft violated sections 456.072(1)(k) and 458.331(1)(g) when he performed a third trimester abortion in his clinic, which is not a hospital.”…

• “violated section 390.0111(1)(a)… which prohibits third trimester abortions unless two physicians certify in writing to the fact that, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the life or preserve the health of the pregnant woman.”

• [violated] “section 390.0111(1)(b)… because he did not certify in writing “to the medical necessity for legitimate emergency medical procedures for termination of pregnancy in the third trimester, and another physician is not available for consultation.”

• “the [Administrative Law Judge] found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Pendergraft committed medical malpractice.”

Pendergraft has a long history of violations and problems with the law. In 2006, Pendergraft’s license was suspended for similar infractions.

In 2001, Pendergraft was convicted of extortion and spent 46 months in prison.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of our media when a political slant keeps news outlets from informing the public of an important story. In the wake of Dr. George Tiller’s death, law enforcement needs to prosecute abortionists who violate the law. Such enforcement in Tiller’s case may have prevented unnecessary violence.

Earlier this year, I produced a series of videos chronicling Pendergraft’s late term abortion practice and one case that involved a baby boy born alive who was left to die.

Dr. George Tiller and "Defensive Action"

If you are concerned with the abortion issue at all, you already know about Dr. George Tiller's death. Tiller was the late term abortionist who operated a clinic in Wichita, Kansas. He was shot to death while serving as an usher in his church on Sunday, May 31st, 2009.

In 1993, I moved into a house directly across the street from one of America's most notorious abortion clinics, Aware Woman Center for Choice in Melbourne, Florida. I had been involved in pro-life activism at abortion clinics since 1989 and was especially concerned that, after the shooting deaths of two abortionists in 1993 and 1994, the movement was in serious trouble. Rather than duck and cover like so many other Christian media outlets had done, I felt it was the right time to confront the issue head on with a viable solution. I later bought the house and it became a staging area for peaceful protest. I became obnoxious to both the abortionists, who attempted unsuccessfully to sue me, and even to some pro-lifers who refused to act without a proper respect for the guidance of seasoned pro-life pastors and leaders. I even banned several people from use of my property who refused to follow the protocol I demanded as the owner. Eventually, the clinic was forced to close in 1999 and the owners chose to retire rather than relocate.

Back in 1993, the prospect of furthering peaceful resistance looked bleak. With the election of Bill Clinton, restrictive federal laws were created concerning free speech and assembly. The right to protest in front of the only abortion clinic in Melbourne, Florida was made illegal for a time. Such laws, which were applied only to pro-lifers, would have been unthinkable had they been applied to any other social activist group. Civil rights protesters who trespassed in "whites only" restaurants, PETA protesters who spray paint fur, and environmental activists who chain themselves to redwoods to save the trees from logging companies are not only tolerated under the first amendment, but even celebrated within their own community of advocates. But with the election of Clinton, pro-life speech suddenly became illegal. The reason given, of course, was to curb the "terrorism" of the defensive action crowd within the pro-life movement.

The crisis of principles was inevitable. Pro-life advocates believe abortion is murder. Many of us were drawn into pro-life activism because we were challenged by a radical idea.

If you believe that abortion is murder, then act like it is murder!

Taken to a logical extreme comes the philosophy of defensive action -- that it is permissible to use violent force in resistance to a more egregious violent force. I wrote a response to defensive action in 1993, called Justifiable Homicide that was published in the Christian Reconstructionist magazine, The Chalcedon Report. The article has been referenced by both pro-life and pro-abortion activists. I won't paste my argument in its entirety into this blog entry, but it is available at our website:

http://www.forerunner.com/chalcedon/X0003_3._Justifiable_homic.html

Defensive action is the idea that violent force in the defense of life is permissible since a human life is being taken in an abortion. Since the civil magistrates' duty is to protect life is being neglected, it is logical to a certain type of mind that individual violent resistance becomes permissible in these cases. Defensive action advocates claim that this is not vigilantism, but the necessary use of violent force in defense of life.

In 1993, Rachelle Shannon used this rationale to shot Dr. Tiller in both arms with a .32 caliber pistol -- a gun that is able to kill, but usually does not incapacitate people. Her intent was merely to prevent his ability to commit abortion that day, but not to kill. I remember at the time wondering why in heaven's name, if she used this argument to justify her defensive action, she simply didn't finish the job once and for all. As one activist remarked, "This woman is a disgrace both to our pro-life ethic and our marksmanship!"

I've spent many hours debating with the defensive action crowd. I will be the first to say that their argument, although wrong, deserves careful scrutiny. I actually agree with defensive action in certain cases. Think of the following situation. Let's say a serial child molester was released from prison. It defies all justice that the man was released, but let's suppose that an extreme circumstance was responsible for this travesty. Suppose also that this sociopath has moved into your neighborhood. Soon after that you discover that your six-year-old daughter has wandered on to his property. After a frantic search, you find your child pinned to the ground by the man in the very act of rape. You hold a baseball bat in your hand.

Is it permissible in this case to use deadly force in defense of life?

Let's say a group of pastors in Nazi Germany begin to participate in a strategy of espionage that results in several assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler. We applaud the resistance of brave Lutheran pastors and erstwhile pacifists such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoeller, precisely because their defensive action in taking one life would have prevented the killing of at least tens of millions.

What makes killing abortion doctors any different?

The reason is that the defensive action scenarios and their actual implementation have never taken place within the confines of God's law. That is not to say that they cannot in any circumstance be justified. For instance, if a family member, let's say a 16-year-old daughter, was about to kill her unborn child and was inside the abortion clinic with a police presence that prevented you from interceding for the life of the baby. I believe it would be permissible to use violent force to prevent the abortionist from murdering your grandchild. In this example, I would agree with violent defensive action.

However, under God's moral law, we cannot act outside the authority of the civil magistrate to prevent all murder in all cases through the use of deadly force. The only exceptions to this would be the case of a war action, defending a family member, which I've mentioned, or a case in which all other options of non-violent resistance would be ineffective to defend a helpless victim. None of the four deadly shootings of abortion doctors that have occurred since 1993 fit these parameters.

It is also good to keep this in perspective. Four cases have occurred in 16 years in which abortion doctors have been shot to death in the United States. Yet since Roe v. Wade was decided, about 45 million unborn baby boys and girls have been slaughtered.

“Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?” - Ezekiel 18:23

Except for the sorrow expressed by God himself when an unrepentant sinner perishes, I don't mourn the death of those who deserve death. I expect that the general public's attitude toward Tiller's assassination is going to be a lot less austere than it was in 1993. We have a president who refused to vote to protect babies even in the ninth month of pregnancy. It's no coincidence that abortion clinic related violence decreases when a pro-life president is in office, but increases when extreme pro-abortion legislation is enacted that is out of the mainstream of American public opinion.

Barack Obama is responsible for creating the atmosphere of violence among the defensive action folks in the pro-life movement, just as Bill Clinton and Janet Reno through their jackbooted federal thuggery were responsible for creating the frustrated backlash that erupted from among a fringe element. These violent activists were previously quelled by opportunities for social and political resistance within the larger peaceful movement.

As John F. Kennedy said about the civil rights movement, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Gallup Poll: Most Americans now pro-life

The first time I participate in a Gallup Poll I change history!

Last week I got a phone call from Gallup asking for ten minutes of my time in order to participate in a poll. The first question was about whether I approved of President Obama, so wanting my voice to be heard on this issue, I persevered to the end. Almost every demographic question possible was asked including: "Do you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice?"

Imagine my surprise about a week later when I read this news item:

The latest Gallup poll on abortion found that 51 percent of those questioned call themselves "prolife" - the first time a majority of US adults have identified themselves as such since Gallup began asking this question in 1995 ... Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,015 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 7-10, 2009.

This might seem like a trite statement to say, "I changed history," but people really are influenced by public opinion polls. If the trend continues the pro-aborts can no longer say, "The vast majority of Americans are pro-choice!"

If there is a lesson to be learned here it is that if you want to be a world changer, you must often participate in the process, no matter how mundane it sometimes feels.

ABC News Poll: 92 Million Evangelical Christians in America

I was looking for some statistics on the number of self-professed evangelicals in America and I found this poll from June of last year:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html

According to the poll, 83 percent of Americans describe themselves as Christian.

Of this number, 37 percent of all Christians describe themselves as born-again or evangelical; that includes nearly half of all Protestants (47 percent), as well as a small share (14 percent) of Catholics.

So assuming the current census numbers of just over 301 million, there are 250 million "Christians" in the United States and 92 million evangelicals.

Evangelicals are by definition people who believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ; the inerrancy of scripture; and that salvation comes through faith in Christ alone.

If we include conservative Roman Catholics who don't describe themselves as "evangelical," but who nevertheless share our values, the number swells even larger -- perhaps more than 100 million or one-third of all Americans.

Consider that this voting block goes for the Republican presidential candidate by 70 to 80 percent in every election. Then consider that no presidential candidate has ever won with more than 70 million votes.

What we have is a sleeping giant among evangelical non-voters.

If conservative Christians want to capture the majority of the executive, congressional and judicial offices at the national level and in most states in the next four to six years, a simple strategy can be employed.

1. Promote the truth that voting is not only a privilege it is a duty.

Jesus taught: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." For too long, many Christians have taken this to mean that we are exempt from political involvement. "We belong to God and therefore our vote does not need to be rendered unto Caesar." Whether this is thought consciously or unconsciously, this is the attitude and the behavior. However, in a representative democracy, "Caesar" is "We the People." This means that we have the God mandated responsibility to represent ourselves by casting our vote. We cannot simply opt out of the process and say that we are exempt from rendering to Caesar since we belong to God. Evangelical Christians as a potential majority voting bloc are Caesar. In our democratic republic, Caesar -- "We the People" -- belongs to God!

2. Hold two national caucuses made up of prominent evangelical leaders every two years to endorse candidates.

The Conservative Christian Caucus could be called prior to the primaries in each election year to examine Democratic, Republican and Independent candidates according to a three pronged test.

* Pro-life and pro-family issues

* Domestic spending and tax reform

* Lessening size of the federal government and regulation

All candidates would be invited to give a short speech on their policy positions. Then each delegate would give each candidate a "yea or nay" on each area and votes would be tabulated with each candidate receiving a rating.

In each presidential primary cycle the evangelical vote is usually split between several candidates and what invariably happens is that the plurality ends up going to a moderate Republican who then disappoints conservative evangelicals by caving in on one or more of the three areas of our concern.

After the third or fourth primary, the Caucus would reconvene in order to unite behind a single candidate. The same process would be used as before, with the "winner" of the caucus publicized. In this way, evangelical voters would not be hoodwinked into thinking that they must support the "front runner" in order to win the presidency in the fall. The tail will no longer wag the dog. The front runner would become the candidate we unite behind.

In every two year congressional election, these caucuses might occur on the state and district level as well to evaluate conservative candidates.

A national caucus would be also be held during the mid-term election cycle in order to evaluate the performance of the sitting president and to evaluate some important senatorial and congressional races.

Waking The Sleeping Giant

Let's face it. Gulliver has been held captive by the Lilliputians for too long. We have been told we can't organize or risk losing our 501(c)3 status. But a majority of conservatives in power (not just "Republicans in name only") would have the power to abolish the IRS with one stroke of the pen. We could revert to a "fair tax" -- a national sales tax -- that would make losing 501(c)3 status moot.

(And for those church and ministry leaders who fear the losing the motivating factor of having tax exempt donations on donors 1040 "Schedule A" forms, please realize that donations would still be tax exempt under a "fair tax" in that we would not pay any income tax or sales tax on these donations!)

We therefore need to complete steps one and two and then revert to step one in an effort to motivate all evangelical voters to participate in the primaries and the general election. It is not even necessary at this point to educate evangelicals how to vote, but to get them to vote. This huge voting bloc is going to generally fall along an 80/20 ratio and has the ability to tilt any election if enough vote. A few strategies can be employed.

1. Encourage pastors and priests to give short election day sermons in which the Christian duty to vote is expounded upon.

2. Distribute absentee ballots to church members with simple easy to explain instructions on how to use them. Absentee ballots are far more effective than "voter guide" because it requires the individual to examine his or her choices prior to election day. Absentee ballots might be coupled with voter guides, but might be better received than voter guides among pastors and church elders who are squeamish about having a "Christian Coalition Voter Guide" available among the church's "Gospel" literature.

3. Conduct frequent voter registrations in churches prior to the primaries, after Easter Day service and prior to the general elections.

These two strategies of uniting behind a single candidate through local, state and national caucuses and mobilizing the "sleeping giant" can have a huge effect in restoring some moral sanity to the politics and culture of our nation.

Abortion: The Religion of Witchcraft and Child Sacrifice (OPENING)

This is the rough cut of a future DVD release based on the script: Massacre of Innocence: The Occult Roots of Abortion by Eric Holmberg and Jay Rogers. It will be an update to the 1987 production of Massacre of Innocence.

INTRODUCTION

(Sound of shutter drive)

(Photos of Pat Windle)

Caption:

Patricia Baird-Windle,
Founder and owner of Aware Woman Center for Choice

You practice your religion and let me practice mine.

(Sound of shutter drive)

My religion is a holy ritual child sacrifice.

(Shot of WRCF incorporation papers.)

On August 4, 1992, two employees of Aware Woman Center for Choice, Veronica Jordan and Rebecca Morris, registered a non-profit religious corporation known as the Wiccan Religious Cooperative of Florida (WRCF). The stated purpose of the WRCF is to provide an umbrella organization for witch covens throughout the state of Florida. The incorporation papers list two abortion clinic employees as directors of the Wiccan organization. Aware Woman Center for Choice is one of Florida's largest abortion clinics.

(Shot of book invoice)

Shortly after the Wiccan Religious Cooperative of Florida was founded, Carol Ebbing, another Aware Woman abortion clinic employee, ordered this book entitled: The Sacrament of Abortion.

(Shot of book cover The Sacrament of Abortion by Ginnette Paris)

The book, authored by Ginnette Paris, presents abortion as "a sacred act."

(Shot of Ginnette Paris picture from Pacifica Graduate Institutes web site)

Paris calls abortion "a sacrifice to Artemis, who refuses to give life if the gift is not pure" (that is innocent or preborn life).

The January 1993 issue of the Wiccan Open Circle newsletter described the founding of the Wiccan Religious Cooperative of Florida:

(Shot of cover of newsletter Open Circle)

A year ago the dream of an umbrella group under which many covens would function and be committed to peace and harmony For The Good Of All, was just that, a dream. But now it is a reality and a very, very big part of the lives of many people.

(Shot of text from newsletter page 5)

This same newsletter, published at the time the pro-life organization, Operation Rescue National, held an event in Melbourne, Florida, alerted Central Florida area Wiccans and Pagans.

... steps are being taken to protect not only Aware Woman, but a woman's right to choose. Work is being done mundanely, financially, and magically, to help get through the next few months and beyond.

(Shot of text from newsletter pages 6 and 7)

Readers of Open Circle were encouraged to become "clinic escorts" -- and were told how they could help fund the South Brevard National Organization of Woman's program to help low income women have abortions.

Wiccans were also encouraged to work their magic on the area surrounding the Aware Woman abortion clinic:

... many individuals and groups have been helping to magically protect the building and property ... This has been done by magical and psychic shielding being put on and around the property....

Is this just one abortion clinic that happens to have ties to a witches coven? Or is it indicative of something deeper and more sinister within the abortion rights movement? In focusing on the subject of abortion, much has been contended from a medical and social perspective. But when we pull the lid off and look at abortion from a biblical and spiritual perspective, the implications are far more profound and staggering.

As we view the ties between occult religion and the abortion industry, the conclusion will become obvious. The promotion of abortion is not just a political and social issue; it is part of a religious and spiritual agenda -- the religion of witchcraft and child sacrifice.

(Music, sound effects)

(OPENING TITLE)

ABORTION: THE RELIGION OF WITCHCRAFT AND CHILD SACRIFICE

"The Occult Roots of Abortion" audio sermons on-line

This is from a pastor, Scott Johnson of North Fort Myers, Florida, who found my (co-written with Eric Holmberg) website article: The Occult Roots of Abortion. He preached a three part sermon reading the articles and expounding on the text relating it to scripture throughout.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1119072034224

I am amazed. I posted the .mp3 audio sermons on my website. Here are the links:

http://www.forerunner.com/audio/wicca1.mp3

http://www.forerunner.com/audio/wicca2.mp3

http://www.forerunner.com/audio/wicca3.mp3

It is ironic. I sat down today to capture the audio for a video I have started on "Witchcraft and Abortion." I was searching to see if there were any photos of these Wiccan abortionists on the Internet. I found these .mp3 files by chance. I wrote and edited the articles in 1993 and later combined this with Eric Holmberg's Massacre of Innocence video script. There was a period of time in 1996 when I first posted my website that I would get up to 30 emails a day from enraged Wiccans who protested these articles. It was at that time that Forerunner.com was "discovered" by a mass audience of Wiccans and Pagans. Ironically their attention helped the fledgling website's overall popularity in the search engines.

To think I spent several hours doing the audio for a video (that will later have to be redone by Eric Holmberg anyway) and I found a pastor on the Internet who had already done the same thing! I'll be posting the video in segments on YouTube prior to the production of the final DVD.

Stay tuned.

You can subscribe to my YouTube channel if you want to get updates via email.

http://www.youtube.com/jcr4runner

Raped and Pregnant?

I have several pro-life videos on YouTube warning about the dangers of elective abortion.

I occasionally get a comment from a viewer who tells me first to stop being so judgmental because she was "raped and pregnant." It seems the perfect retort because who can argue with that? It's truly an example of a "crisis pregnancy" and I don't doubt it's a horrific ordeal to go through. But my response is usually the same.

"You were never raped and pregnant."

How can I say that so callously?

I just find it unlikely that on one vlog (for example) of 115 comments, I would have even one person who was raped and pregnant. It is claimed that about one percent of all abortions are due to rape. And even these numbers are based on false testimony.

One percent of 1.3 million would be 13,000 abortions due to rape.

Is that possible?

Justice Department statistics for 2004 had approximately 0.4 rapes per 1,000 people. And that is from a broad definition of "rape" that would include various types of sexual assault. According to the Justice Department, of the average annual 200,780 sexual assault victims in 2004-2005, about 64,080 were victims of "completed rape."

Obviously, only a "completed rape" could result in a pregnancy.

To arrive at the "raped and pregnant" statistic of even one percent of all abortions, 13,000 (or over 20%) of these 64,000 rapes would have to result in a pregnancy.

Then to get to the number of even 1 percent of 1.3 million, 100% of those pregnancies would have to be aborted.

I've heard of other studies that show the number of rape-pregnancies leading to abortions is less than 500 per year.

That's why if you tell me you were "raped and pregnant," I am skeptical.

22 Weeks Premiere: Babies born alive after failed abortions!

The Orlando premiere of 22 Weeks was attended by about 200 people. This is part of the question and answer session after the film was shown. Film maker Ángel Soto, lawyer John Stemberger (Florida Family Policy Council) and sidewalk counselor Patte Smith (Sanctuary Ministries) took questions from the audience after the showing.

See also:

http://forerunner.com/prolife.html

and

http://22weeksthemovie.com

22 Weeks premiere in Orlando

I went to the 22 Weeks premiere in Orlando. This is a film about the Baby Rowan story.

I was asked to videotape the question and answer session after the showing. Film maker, Ángel Soto, Patte Smith of Sanctuary Ministries and John Stemberger of Florida Family Policy Council were on the panel. Three other people brought camcorders, so the resulting videos should be interesting.

It occurred to me right now that technology is making it easier for people to work together towards a cause in a grassroots manner. I have loose ties to all three of these people, but I find it interesting that the Q&A video itself is a cooperative project that will now be seen by thousands of people that cost virtually nothing but our time to put together. That could never have happened ten years ago.

For now, you need to see this series I did earlier this month based on Patte Smith's interviews we shot in the spring of 2007.

An Imprecatory Prayer Proclamation: Barack Obama

As Barack Obama takes office, we are reprising an initiative we launched in 1994 with President Clinton. It is called an Imprecatory Prayer Proclamation. It was used extensively by the early church Fathers notably St. Augustine and later John Knox in the 16th century. Here you have it in file format and via email. Our goal is to get 300 signatures by January 20th. Just email us through the SGI website at www.s-g-i.org.

Best Regards and God Bless,

Jeffrey A. Ziegler, President: SGI

The SGI Presidential Prayer Proclamation 2009

1. Whereas: The providential history of mankind is covenantal in nature, comprised of Divine blessings for obedience to the Law-Word of God, and negative sanctions for transgression of the same, and under consideration of the historic precedent of public covenantal proclamations regarding the unlawful actions of civil magistrates established by John Knox in 16th century Scotland, the combined members and associates of SGI have during the month of January 2009, conducted concerted and public prayer for the President of the United States, Barack Obama, along covenantal lines, having the Davidic imprecatory Psalms as our form and pattern.
2. This proclamation serves as a synopsis of our activity.
3. Resolved: To the end that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, fulfills his duties as the covenantal head of this nation along Biblical lines; we as Christ's ambassadors pray and proclaim blessing. That is, if the President executes his duties in a fashion that would not be tyranny to good works and would uphold the abiding validity of God's moral law as delineated in the Ten Commandments along with the justice-mercy ethic derived from the New Testament, we do declare that blessing, honor, and good success would be upon him, his associates and policies.
4. Resolved: In that the President of the United States Barack Obama has thus far sought the codification of behavior condemned in the infallible Law-Word of God, specifically homosexual "marriage" and tax-funded state-sanctioned murder in the form of abortion, we as Christ's ambassadors proclaim negative sanctions. That is: if the President continues to hold in disdain the Law-Word of God by ratifying evil and by such ratification holds our lives as citizens of the republic in bondage to the same idolatry, we as Christ's ambassadors do pray that Barack Obama would now repent and cease from his cruel persecution of innocent pre-born babies and his tyrannical oppression of God's people who would not be part of his pro-homosexual agenda. If the President ceases not from his malicious cruelty, we then earnestly pray that his days in office would be few and another man take his office, and that the name of Barack Obama would remain a reproach to all succeeding generations of Americans.

Join SGI in The Presidential Prayer Proclamation! Write to us by sending an email through our website www.s-g-i.org. When sufficient signatures are received (300) a framed copy of the proclamation will be sent to President Obama!

SGI
PO Box 787
Madison Ohio 44057

www.s-g-i.org

Obama and Infanticide: The issue that will not go away

By Jeffrey A. Ziegler
President: Statesmen Global Initiatives

In the 2008 election cycle, the issue of abortion is being systematically silenced in the cacophony of Presidential rhetorical ballyhoo. From communist populism in the Obama camp to neo-conservative nativistic urges in the McCain entourage, the cause of pre-born babies is but an inconvenient blip on the political radar. Only Sarah Palin has had the intestinal fortitude to not only stand for the babies but to actually speak on behalf of the children.

Obama is what he is. He even advocates the extermination of babies born alive. This horror is known and it is unequivocally clear. Those so-called "Christians" who vote for Obamanation and the codification of state sponsored slaughter of innocents, do so in willful commissionable sin against God. McCain at least will stand for justices and states who promote the life ethic. Yet very few politicos have the guts to speak affirmatively and act pro-actively to end this horrid blight upon our nation. Most of the would be politicians who say they are pro-life do so in very hushed tones, especially at the local level. They are afraid, even embarrassed at their more strident brethren who actually defend the defenseless. For these anemics their "pro-life" stand is akin to "standing in a garage and calling yourself a car."

Saying so doesn't make it so.

With only a few days left to the election, I was struck by a missive from Russia, which in brief, hailed Vladimir Putin for decrying abortion (Russia's national suicide) and its deleterious long term effects on his nation. How ironic that the ex-KGB operative signaled a "national copulation day" so as to bring more babies into the world. Now that would be an interesting policy don't you think? Do you think our politicos would ever sound the alarm in such fashion?

I'm enclosing a video to distribute wherever you can before the election. This production brings it all to a crystalline clear message.

YOU WILL NOT BE THE SAME AFTERWARDS.

VIDEO: http://durarealidad.com/

"You can't push your beliefs about abortion on someone else!"

The following is a comment on one of my YouTube Vlogs on the pro-life issue and my response.

This shows you how confused is our postmodernist generation of the 21st century. When someone says, " I can't push my beliefs on someone else," they are actually stating a belief.

Not pushing your beliefs on someone is pushing your beliefs.

As Nietzsche (who was right sometimes) said: "Not to decide is to decide."

Or as Cornelius Van Til argued, there is no such thing as a statement of belief that contains moral neutrality.

_________________

missmelpol: I don't believe in having an abortion, but that is MY BELIEF. I can't push my beliefs on someone else. I thought that was why we had a freedom of religion or speech and all that good stuff.


jcr4runner: The question is: "Why do you think abortion is wrong?" Is it because:

1. You don't like abortion?

- or -

2. Abortion is murder?

If it is simple a question of likes and dislikes, then no you don't have the right to enforce a mere opinion. But if abortion is murder, it is a moral law that transcends personal opinion. It can't be "murder" for one person and "not murder" for another depending on how one feels at the moment.

Barack Obama - "Punished with a baby!"

This is an examination of Barack Obama's infamous quote in which he said that if his daughters were to get pregnant by "mistake" that he didn't want them "punished with a baby!" Obama thinks some babies are "punishments" for "mistakes." What a contrast to Sarah Palin who accepted her daughter's baby and her own Downes Syndrome baby with open loving arms.

Sarah Palin - The Tale of Two Babies

Here's a pro-life ad a few friends of mine produced.

Powerful!

An electoral college landslide for McCain?

Even without Sarah Palin on the ticket, John McCain already had the electoral college sewn up just after the Democratic convention.

That's if the pre-convention polling results of the last 35 years are an indicator.

Let's look at the data. A Democratic challenger needs at least an 18 to 19 point lead going into a convention.

McGovern had a 17 point lead in 1972.

Mondale had 14 in 1984.

Dukakis had 11 in 1988.

All ended up as landslides for the Republican candidates on election day.

On the other hand, Carter had a 21 point over Ford in 1976 and he barely eeked out a win in one of the closest elections in history.

Bill Clinton had the largest lead in history prior to the Democratic convention in 1992. Then the Democrats got an additional 16 point "bounce" (the largest in history) causing Ross Perot to drop out of the race temporarily. Of course, Clinton went on to win.

Barack's outlook is dismal if we use this as a precedent.

Obama went into his convention with a 3 point and came out a 6 point lead -- the lowest bounce ever.

The Democrat insiders saw the handwriting on the wall. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska both were asked to fill the vice president slot before Senator Biden. They saw the numbers and decided not to go down with a sinking ship. Biden apparently thought he had nothing to lose.

Now McCain is up by three or four points nationally according to the most recent polls and has been gaining a point or two per week in the key counties and states. The momentum is swinging toward McCain in every state.

The liberal media is going to keep saying that it all comes down to Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Mexico. If McCain loses all three, Obama loses the popular vote, but wins the electoral college. If McCain can take just one (which is almost a certainty) he slips in. If he wins all three and perhaps one or two more of the "blue" states, then it is an electoral college landslide. There is the strong possibility that even states such as Washington and New York are now moving toward McCain.

Of course, the media will try to paint it as a horse race and do everything they can to spin public opinion toward Obama, but this is going to be a landslide victory if trends continue -- not as big as Nixon over McGovern in 1972 -- but still a landslide.

(Thanks to JAZ for his historical analysis and insights.)

The Atheist Syndrome

Dr. George Grant sat for a video interview a back and he talked about the book, The Atheist Syndrome. The author, John Koster, profiles the lives and personalities of four of most well-known atheists and their followers. In the most extreme cases, atheism is not just a healthy skepticism, such as agnosticism (the admission of "not knowing" if there is a God) or "free thinking" that eschews supernatural theology in favor of naturalist explanations. The atheist claims to speak as infallibly as God in claiming there is no God. In its extreme form, atheism is a mental disorder.

George Grant explains:



If you think this is pure polemics, I'll go as far as to agree that on the surface it seems that this profile is too naïve. To say that all atheists are bed-wetters, sexual deviants, victims of abusive fathers and promiscuous mothers is at best an over-generalization based on four of the most well-known atheists and some of their followers. I'd never go to this extreme to say all atheists are like that.

But there is a syndrome that is very real and more endemic to atheists than any other group.

Since 1987, my passion for ministry has focused on media projects, eschatology, theonomy, evangelism, foreign missions, political action and pro-life activism. Therefore, most of the criticism I get from our web presence has been from liberals, witches, pagans, and pro-abortion advocates. It is completely understandable and expected. The liberals (both theological and political) fear that a growing Christian movement represents a throwback to the fear and prejudice of the so-called "Dark Ages." Witches and pagans fear that biblical law will lead to a return to the "burning times." Pro-aborts oppose pro-life activism out of their desire for selfish autonomy and a license for irresponsible behavior.

Most of the emails and comments I have received from these groups have taken the form of hysterical screeds. In effect, they say: "You Christians want to kill and repress us all!"

Of this group, King Solomon lamented when he wrote:

"The wicked flee when no one is pursuing" (Proverbs 28:1).

When faced with left-wing paranoia, I usually try to explain in a rational and calm tone that there is always great freedom in a Christian society for people to hold other views and practice their religion in private just as long just as they do not break the civil laws of the society. Of course, Christians want these laws based – if not wholly, then at least in principle – on biblical law.

As a person who was converted to Christ as an adult, I realize that everyone is in a different place in their journey toward God. We can offer a great deal of tolerance when dealing with groups who do not share our worldview. It took me 23 years to see the truth. I try to keep that in mind and that I should bear with people who don't see it my way.

My vision for a Christian America is the Puritanism of Oliver Cromwell – a ruler who invited Jews to return to England 100 years after being banished by King Henry VIII. Cromwell also protected the rights of Roman Catholics to worship publicly in Protestant England – although he was adamantly opposed to their theology on a personal level. He strengthened a republican form of government in England and fought the idea of the "divine right of kings."

Recently, due to some side comments I made on a blog post regarding imprecatory prayer, I've flushed out droves of new antagonists – the militant atheists. Except for a few notable champions, most prefer to remain anonymous while sniping at Christians and all theists in general from the bushes. Their most effective field of battle is the blogosphere of course.

They are even more hysterical than the usual suspects – the liberals, pagans and pro-aborts – but they are different in that they share in common several pathological characteristics. While I don't necessarily think that Koster's thesis is entirely correct, I've noticed several common denominators among atheists – or at least the these anonymous atheist flamers on the Internet. These include:

1. Decrying the supposed stupidity and lack of intelligence on the part of Christians without ever condescending to a focused debate on worldview issues.
2. The use of invective, profanity and ad hominem attacks when refuting Christians, ironically acting extremely insulted when the tables are turned.
3. Focusing on the supposed hypocrisies of Christianity, while never owning their own behavior or the inhuman criminal history of recent atheistic societies.
4. An obsession with sexually demeaning comments bordering on harassment in an attempt to assault the moral sensibilities and sexual ethics of the Bible.
5. An obsession with irrelevant details.
6. Frequent accusations of lying and dishonesty even while purposefully interpreting Christian writings and biblical theology in a skewed and satirical manner.
7. An irrational insistence that experimental science is the only form of rational thought. In other words, a belief in metaphysical naturalism (the idea that all truth is knowable through naturalistic experimentation and observation) rather than traditional scientific rationalism (the idea that science can only observe, reproduce and describe natural events according to an imperfect paradigm.)

I didn't need to do case studies or conduct a scientific study to discover this syndrome. I have enough data in my mail box over the years. (I am sure that I'll get many more of these now as a result of P.Z. Myers free advertisement of my website.)

No atheist's response is complete without the "bearing false witness" charge. Although mountains of materials defending Christianity have been written and collected over the centuries, the charge is always that it is a "lie" to say so. On the contrary, if a religious opinion can be proven demonstrably wrong, it is only an opinion, not a lie.

Another ploy is to portray Christians as "hateful." The idea that Christianity promotes a "love you neighbor" ethic is freely admitted by atheists when they berate us for our alleged "hatred hypocrisy." They need to borrow from Christianity's moral code of the "law of love" even while they mock us!

I sometimes use sarcasm in my responses to non-believers. Jesus and the Apostle Paul used sarcasm, so it's not wrong to use it in a measured way. But usually I try to answer rationally – not with my answers, but with a theological consensus based on years of study on the matter. I don't get into arguments over things I know nothing about. In this case, silence is usually treated as an admission of surrender.

It is supposed to be hypocrisy for Christians to treat biblical morality as binding on non-believers. It's hypocritical for us hold a black and white view of morality. Who are we to say what is "good" and "evil"? But that's not to stop the pot from calling the kettle black. Atheists have their own version of morality that they seek to impose on society.

Neutrality is a myth. Every civil law is an imposition of someone's morality on another person. No culture can exist for long as an amalgamation of diverse "moralities." Eventually one worldview is going to win out. And that is really what this debate is about. It's a battle for our culture. The militant atheists are worthy adversaries in this battle because they understand that theirs is a battle for cultural dominion far better than most Christians. Although atheists are a small minority, they understand that they can win by holding forth in the battle of ideas. No matter how vacuous they may sound at first, many of their core ideas are already the ruling presuppositions of the media, entertainment industry and liberal politics.

That is why the Sarah Palin nomination has them hysterical. Win or lose, she is a bright, young, articulate defender of the Christian political worldview who will be around for years to come.

So get ready. The culture wars are back.

Why I support Chuck Baldwin for President

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

- John Quincy Adams

Have you considered voting for the Constitution Party candidate in the last few election cycles, Howard Phillips or Mike Peroutka or Chuck Baldwin, but were discouraged by the following argument?

“A vote for Chuck Baldwin is a vote for Barack Obama!”

or …

“You are throwing away your vote on a candidate that can’t win!”

There is a fundamental problem with this statement in that it assumes that the Republican choice is acceptable. I had this argument with Ron Paul supporters in the Republican primaries. I argued that Mike Huckabee was an acceptable candidate and actually had a chance of winning. If only the Romney and Paul supporters would unite behind the frontrunner we could have beaten McCain.

The problem with my thinking was that the Paul supporters – even though they could not win – thought Huckabee was an unacceptable choice. While I disagree with them, I respect them for their uncompromising stance.

Likewise, I would vote for Sarah Palin without any hesitation she were running for president. She's not perfect, but acceptable. I am willing to make a mistake on a relative unknown who has done all the right things so far and stands for all the right things (at least in word). However, Sarah Palin isn't running for president, John McCain is. It is the "known" quantity of McCain that I can't support. I simply can't bring myself in good conscience to support a liberal Republican.

The Constitution Party is by far a better choice. I am supporting Chuck Baldwin because he's the best man running. If you doubt this, I ask you to visit his website and make your decision based on his positions.

http://www.baldwin08.com/

The Constitution Party is the only political party that recognizes Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of humanity in its platform. Up and down, every issue that Christians care about is advocated – not without flaws – but in a far better way than what I have seen in any other political party.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

Now some will object:

“What if millions of Christians support Baldwin, but we get only 10 percent of the vote and throw the election to the Democrats?”

It’s possible.

Many people blame Ross Perot for Clinton’s election to office with 43 percent of the vote in 1992 and then 49 percent of the vote in 1996. But there is a flip side to the argument.

First, the Republican Party needs Christian conservatives in order to win. If we “throw” an election or two, the damage is short term. Then we may get the candidate we want in the next cycle, or else the Constitution Party is an option again. It’s the age-old political strategy of purposefully taking one step backwards in order to take two steps forward. If we continue the way we are going now with the Republican Party, we are surely going backwards. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 spawned the “Contract with America” – a conservative movement that didn’t go far enough and yet brought the greatest era of economic growth our nation has ever seen. A loss is not a loss when the better of the two frontrunners is a disaster.

Second, there are probably just as many disaffected leftists who would vote Green Party, Libertarian Party or some other third party instead of voting for a Democrat from a congressional session that has a 17 percent approval rating. When they see many of us leaving the Republican Party, fewer of them will be afraid to leave the Democrats.

Third, we will win eventually. I believe strongly in the “Puritan Hope” – that one day the whole earth will be filled with the glory of God. Supporting the Constitution Party is supporting the winning side. It is the only self-consciously Christian party. It can be our vehicle until something even better comes along. America will be a Christian nation, or another Christian nation will take its place. If we succeed in restoring America to the vision of our Puritan and Christian Patriot forefathers, our support of the Constitution Party in the darkest days before the fall of western humanism will be a source of joy and pride for our children and grandchildren.

On the other hand, I am afraid that future generations might look back and see that I supported “the lesser of two evils” – and hid my talents in the ground, while our country’s destiny weighed in the balance.

I realize an Obama presidency would be a disaster. I hope and pray that if it is truly a choice between Obama and McCain that somehow McCain wins and he either repents of his weak views on the sanctity of life, marriage and big government – or that he dies soon after his election and Palin gets the executive office.

And yet God holds us accountable for our actions as individuals. If we have the choice between two sinful actions and a morally correct decision, and yet the morally correct decision would cause us to suffer a personal setback, then it is still wrong to pick the lesser of two evils. We only win when we obey God.

Is Baldwin God’s Candidate?

I am not claiming that Baldwin is “God’s candidate.” Every Christian needs to follow his own conscience on this matter. If you can vote for McCain with a clear conscience, then by all means do it, but remember, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23).

But if you think your only option is a vote for McCain, consider this. Twenty years ago it would have been unthinkable for evangelical Christian to support a candidate who said in 2005:

The constitutional amendment [banning gay marriage] strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.... It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/

Since that statement McCain has equivocated all over the place on the issue of gay marriage vs. civil unions – he's for fetal tissue research, but he's "pro-life" – and so on.

If McCain was acceptable or even near the threshold of acceptability I'd vote for him. However, a vote for a lesser evil is still a vote for evil.

Now most of my friends are supporting this man simply because he suddenly talks the right talk. We are no longer governed by the rule of law and we Christians need to do what our conscience tells us to do in order to resist lawlessness.

If we support this candidate, how far will we be willing to compromise 20 years down the road?

God does miracles and it's possible that some weird national crisis could catapult a third party candidate into national prominence. It has happened a few times in our history, Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860 being the most notable example. However, God does not usually perform "miracles" without a human agent acting according to natural means. God sets up providential circumstances and then requires His people to act in the right way to receive the blessing.

Most people don't want to admit it, but we are living in the first stages of a tyrannical state. I don't think it is as bad as some conspiracy theorists would have us think, but it is headed in that direction. What was unthinkable 20 years ago is reality today and God only knows what lies down the road if the slide is not reversed.

Can the slide be reversed? Can we restore our nation as a beacon of righteousness? Will God do such a miracle and bring a spiritual awakening to our land?

Yes, under one condition.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. – 2 Chronicles 7:14

Samuel Adams said referring to the overthrow of George III’s tyranny in America:

He who sets up and pulls down, confines or extends empires at his pleasure, generally, if not always, carries on his work with instruments apparently unfit for the great purpose, but which in his hands are always effectual ... God does the work, but not without instruments, and they who are employed are denominated as his servants; no king, nor kingdom was ever destroyed by a miracle which effectually excluded the agency of second causes ... We may affect humility in refusing to be made the instruments of Divine vengeance, but the good servant will execute the will of his master. Samuel will slay Agag; Moses, Aaron, and Hur will pray in the mountain, and Joshua will defeat the Canaanites.

Yes, God does the work, if His people are willing to obey His commandments. I pray that enough would be willing.

PZ Myers weighs in on my Sarah Palin entry

One of my good friends here in Florida is a young media expert who keeps telling me that I should post more of my writings to my blog instead of constantly writing to a ring of five or six friends with my most imaginative ideas. His rationale is that a blog that goes viral is a valuable commodity. At first, I doubted that most people are ready for my ideas in their raw form, but now I think he may be right. At the very least, I will get some attention.

I found out today that my most read read blog post so far for the month of September is my recent entry about Sarah Palin, in which I suggest that (even though I may end up supporting The Constitution Party once again) I am secretly (now not so secretly) praying that McCain/Palin beats Obama/Biden. Then when McCain wins, we ought to pray for McCain's true conversion making use of imprecatory prayer.

I must be doing something right when PZ Myers calls me a kook.

See: Pharyngula Blog

Myers, if you remember, was the outspoken atheist featured in Expelled the movie.

As an atheist, he thinks that imprecatory prayer is hateful and outrageous. Of course, he gets the intent wrong: I want God to bless the president (whoever he is) if he does right in the eyes of God, and curse him if he disobeys God's law. It's the prayer of David for King Saul in about a dozen or two Psalms.

(Note: Although David's Psalms were used of God to bring about Saul's death, David loved Saul and wanted to see his true conversion.)

PZ didn't read our imprecatory prayer articles.

But due to PZ's blog entry I've gotten a lot of notice as an example of an extremist right wing Christian hate-monger.

Once again.

He even throws in a Mr. Rogers' joke. It's very funny actually. Ironic. If PZ only knew the how mild-mannered and congenial I am with my high school students. I am Mr Rogers!

One my most favorite passages of scripture is Judges 5:20, the Song of Deborah:

“They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.”

The idea of course, is that every political battle, every war, is also a spiritual battle when it involves God's people. Justice is written into every atom of the universe. There is a war going on, a spiritual revolution. There is no neutral ground on which to stand. And judgment at the moment of our death is inescapable.

So I need your advice.

My next entry on Sarah Palin vs. Obama/Biden may be called:

"Deborah vs. Sisera: the stars fought in their courses"

- or -

"The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Girly Men"

(I won't explain this last one now. Just read the John Knox article here.)

Which do you like better?

The Sarah Palin "sigh" factor

I was going to sit down yesterday and explain why I've supported the Constitution Party presidential candidate in every general election since 1992. I still plan to vote Constitution Party. I will write on that shortly, but first I wanted to give my reaction to the Sarah Palin V.P. nomination.

If Palin was running for president against Barack Obama, I'd support her with no qualms. She's pro-life and would work to overturn Roe v. Wade. She would lower taxes and return America to a supply-side free market in the philosophy of Adam Smith. She's a strong Christian who isn't afraid to confront moral issues and corruption in politics.

Palin is going to win this election for John McCain.

I can think of many reasons why. Here are just three.

1. She is going to be extremely popular among young voters who tend not to walk lock-step with one party. This will hurt the Democrats among young would-be Obama and Clinton supporters who tend to be influenced more by the "sigh" factor than on the issues. In general, a large block of American voters are incredible shallow and Palin ... well, just look at her.

2. She is also a great person. She has a sparky personality you can't help fall in love with. She's strong, uncompromising, spiritual and practices what she preaches. Barack Obama's appeal is that he represents change, but Barack has also been shown to be the ultimate contradiction on many levels. Obama claims to represent the common people, but many can't help but wonder if he is really one of us. It's almost as if he is trying to be liked by everybody. Sarah Palin is just the opposite. She really is one of us and she doesn't care if you like her -- even people in her own party.

Now here is the most obvious selling point:

3. Scientists claim there is more untapped oil in the Arctic than in Saudi Arabia. When gas prices start climbing way above $4 a gallon in the aftermath of a few Gulf of Mexico hurricanes, Palin is simply going to look into the camera, smile, and with her sparky sanguine squeaky voice, she is going to say: "For the good of our economy, we need to tap America's oil wealth! We've also got to protect the habitat of those caribou, moose and polar bears. So we will drill in a way that's environmentally sensitive. And I am just the woman to do it!"

(Note: one reader pointed out that I ought to include all American territory in this claim as well. The point is that we have enough oil within our borders to supply our energy needs.)

Let's face reality for a moment. When people see gas prices hurting their wallet and then see an attractive, young woman politician on television saying she'll help them because she's from Alaska, has hunted moose, and has been trying to get the drill ban on federal lands lifted all along, the choice is going to be very obvious.

I was hoping for a good showing for a pro-life third party candidate in this cycle, which could in turn affect the next elections in favor of conservative Christians. I'll explain my thinking on that later. The Palin nomination turned that chance on it's head. Even James Dobson, the Constitution Party's most well- known supporter who said he'd "never" support John McCain, has now reversed his decision based on Palin's nomination.

So here is my three point plan:

1. Vote Constitution Party. (I vote my conscience and cannot support McCain even with Palin.)

2. Hope and pray for McCain/Palin to win. (I am an idealist, but also a realist!)

3. Pray for John McCain's salvation and pray specific imprecatory prayers if he fails to pro-actively defend the sanctity of human life.

(Note: If you don't understand this term, Google The Forerunner's articles on Imprecatory Prayer.)

(In a few days, I'll write my explanation on why the Constitution Party is the way for Christians to go. But I want to see what happens at the Republican convention first.)

I Invented the Internet (Ep. 4: Kill and Destroy)

link: I Invented the Internet (Ep. 4: Kill and Destroy)

You may or may not have seen the Baby Rowan video I made last year on a baby that was born alive and left to die in an Orlando, Florida abortion clinic. I've embedded it below.

Recently, I was told about a viral video that has over half a million views in a short period of time. It has Jill Stanek talking about how she often held babies that were born alive in abortion clinics until they died -- sometimes for close to an hour.

The video above was made by Jason Mitchell in order to expose Barack Obama's opposition to a bill that made it illegal to leave these babies born alive to die without medical care.

I was contacted by Jason Mitchell after I linked my Baby Rowan video to his powerful piece above. Jason mentioned that he knew The Forerunner and that his dad had been part of Maranatha Ministries. Jason didn't remember me, but I knew him quite well when he was a teenager. His father, Wayne Mitchell, now a pastor in Boston, and I produced The Mandate, a version of The Foreunner for Chinese students, for three years in the mid-1990s.

I am glad to see that Jason has turned out to be even more radical than his father. God is truly a sovereign God!

A few of Jason's videos have been featured on major news networks as an example of how the viral video phenomenon is changing politics in America. Watch all Jason's videos on YouTube if you get a chance. They are a hoot!

"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

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.

Ben Stein’s Expelled: A Movie Review

Yesterday, I went to the movie theater in Orlando’s Downtown Disney, about seven miles from my home, to see an advance screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed with Ben Stein. The film opens on 1000 screens in a limited release on April 18th. Stein’s documentary begins with a survey of university professors who were either fired, denied tenure or otherwise "expelled" for using their academic credentials as a platform for discussing Intelligent Design (I.D.) with their classes, publishing articles or just linking to I.D. websites.

This movie is a “must see” for anyone who cares about the first amendment right to free speech in the public market place of ideas. Hopefully, a successful opening will spur the documentary to run across thousands of more screens in North America and the world.

The thrust of Stein’s exposé is that academic debate on I.D. is being squelched by a scientific elite who nevertheless admit that they have no settled theory on how the original living cell could have arisen spontaneously. More dramatically, the film shows that the same evolutionary philosophy that denies intelligent design in the universe is at the heart of moral relativism, eugenics, genocide, euthanasia and abortion on demand.

One of the most powerful vignettes in the movie occurs when Stein, a conservative Jew, tours one of the Nazi prison camps where thousands of people were gassed and incinerated. The woman giving the tour refuses to make any moral judgments about Hitler or the Nazi officers in charge of the genocide campaign even when pressed by Stein to give her opinion.

Without a Creator or an Intelligent Designer there is no real basis for holding an objective opinion on morality. “Might makes right” becomes the moral force for the advancement of humanity even when “inferior” minorities and the handicapped are selected for extermination. The film proves that the Nazi eugenicists were fueled by a radical social Darwinism. Yes, Hitler really believed he was working for the good of mankind.

Another long needed yet neglected topic briefly explored in Expelled is the origin of birth control and abortion in our own country through eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. As a pro-life activist, I am encouraged to see this brought into public consciousness in a major film. Sanger, in fact, was a vocal advocate of eugenics. The film doesn’t delve deeply into the fact that when Sanger wanted to solve the “Negro problem” through a campaign of sterilization for black men prior to World War Two, she corresponded with Nazi eugenicists. Expelled at least cracks the cover on an ugly chapter in American history that continues today in the guise of “family planning,” a code word for the slaughter of millions of unborn babies funded in part through taxpayer support of Planned Parenthood.

Expelled also documents the fact that many well-known evolutionists see religion as a hindrance to the advance of science and openly admit they are actively working to suppress and eradicate religion in public life. The film’s point of view, of course, is that there is no incompatibility. On the contrary, the hypothesis that there might be an intelligence or an ordered design to the universe actually paves the way for better science. It inspires a passion for science in people who believe in a Creator God in some form, which happens to be over 90 percent of the American population.



The film is intellectually fascinating and moves along at a good pace. It makes hilarious use of juxtaposed "b-roll" clips from classic movies and antiquated educational documentaries to illustrate its frequent salient points. An unrelenting off-beat rhythm keeps the viewer entertained.

The most enjoyable part of the documentary for me was the interview with atheist scientist and bestselling author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, who seemed nonplussed by Stein’s questions delivered with deadpan irony. The viewer of course knows that Stein is sympathetic to I.D. So it’s amusing to watch that curmudgeonly reptile Herr Dawkins squirm at Stein’s calm and deliberate interrogation. The interview results in unintentional humor that reminded me of This Is Spinal Tap or Monty Python’s “Dead Parrot Sketch.” Dawkins could not have played a better British humorist even if he had made an attempt.

“How did life begin?”

Dawkins says he doesn’t know. Of course, “no one knows” exactly how the complexity of cellular life could have arisen from non-life. But he believes it. He has to. There is no alternative.

Couldn’t it have been the Hebrew God?

Absurd!

What about the Holy Trinity? Allah? One of the Hindu gods?

Dawkins bristles with frustrated incredulity at the very idea.

Could a model that includes an intelligent designer be used at least hypothetically to explain the origin of life?

Finally, Dawkins admits a viable hypothesis of I.D. is possible. A race of higher intelligent life forms from outer space could have “seeded” the earth with life, but this higher intelligence must have evolved itself over billions of years. This, of course, is begging the question.

If this higher intelligence alien race evolved, then how did the original life form come into being in the first place?

Ironically, Dawkins refuses to consider that it could have been God who started it all because God himself could not have "sprung suddenly out of nothing."

So goes the tenor of several other evolutionary scientists who likewise refuse to admit an alternative to the Neo-Darwinist theory on the origin of life. No one really knows. One scientist hypothesizes that the first DNA molecules could have “ridden on the backs of crystals” as they were being formed.

Aliens? Crystals? An ancient mud puddle struck by lightning?

Yes ... Maybe ... Perhaps ...

God? Intelligent Design?

No!

Controversy over Dawkins’ interview was reported in a New York Times article in which he claimed he was set up by not knowing the thrust of the documentary. However, the producers gave the interviewees the list of questions beforehand and each was paid for his interview. One of the producers who attended the preview in Orlando quipped, “They all cashed their checks and no one returned the money they were paid for participating.”

Expelled spurred controversy a full year before its release. Yet no critic will be able to fault it on its quality, appeal and pure entertainment value. Aficionados of Michael Moore’s films – those diatribes that use twisted conspiracy theories and selective editing to achieve a leftwing political purpose – are already panning the film on its content alone as “propaganda.” This is, of course, hypocritical because all that Stein and his producers are asking is for a reasoned debate on I.D. and for new evidence to be considered without the risk of the questioners losing their jobs as teachers and professors.

The controversy and attacks are ironically what the producers need to stir up interest in the film. This will in turn make I.D. a viable option whose time has come. Expelled will weather a few attacks, which will give it a respectable box office return, always a better fate than to be quietly ignored. This is the same phenomenon that propelled The Passion of The Christ, The Da Vinci Code, and Fahrenheit 911 to be the highest grossing films of their genre. Apparently, the enemies of I.D. intend on making Expelled a huge success even though their de facto support is “not by intelligent design.”

Bill Clinton: "If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor ... as an accessory to murder in prison."

Now here is a covenant breaker who is really epistemologically consistent:

"Tell the truth, tell the truth. If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison."

- Bill Clinton

Bill Caught on Camera Lashing Out at Pro-Life Students in Steubenville

STEUBENVILLE, OHIO, February 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Agitated after being greeted by over a hundred pro-life students at a rally in Steubenville tonight, former U.S. President Bill Clinton lost his temper yet again after losing his cool at an Obama supporter in Canton, Ohio. This time, Clinton lashed out during his speech at the pro-life students:

"I gave you the answer. We disagree with you," Clinton said. "You wanna criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree. I reduced abortion. Tell the truth, tell the truth, If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison. And you won't say you wanna do that because you know, that you wouldn't have a lick of political support. Now, the issue is who, the issue is, you can't name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America. This is not your rally. I heard you. That's another thing you need is a president, somebody who will stick up for individual rights and not be pushed around, and she won't."

Clinton's heated response came after being questioned on his support of abortion-on-demand. The outburst is on YouTube and is also being reported by MSNBC.

"Perhaps pro-abortion politicians will finally realize that they can't hide their views from pro-life students," said Billy Valentine, one of the Franciscan University of Steubenville Students for Life members who helped organize the protest of over 100 students.

"Our generation is pro-life. It is amazing that these pro-abortion politicians think that they can continuously support the killing of millions of unborn children and no one will express their dissatisfaction. They think they don't ever have to answer questions about their pro-abortion policies or the money they receive from pro-abortion lobbying organizations. This generation will no longer tolerate these types of politicians, their rhetoric, or their pro-death policies," said Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life of America.

Is John McCain the inevitable nominee?

Last week, I wrote that John McCain cannot win the Republican nomination with an outright majority because most Republican primary voters will split between Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Unless McCain takes every one of the "winner take all primaries" and takes lopsided wins in most of the others, that would leave him with less than the majority needed to win the nomination. After that anything can happen.

Recent polling analysis shows that most conservatives would never vote for Romney, but would support McCain. According to a poll by the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics GOP Primary:

"If John McCain and Mitt Romney were the only choices in the Republican primary, how would you vote?"

McCain -- 62
Romney -- 29
Unsure -- 6
Wouldn't Vote -- 3

Compare those numbers with the latest Rasmussen poll:

McCain -- 33
Romney -- 29
Huckabee -- 21
Paul -- 5
Unsure or other -- 12

Most of the vote that would be for Huckabee, Paul or "other" goes to McCain and not Romney!

Why? Because McCain is no more liberal than Romney. Huckabee's and Paul's base are evangelical Christians and libertarians who see Romney's record on gun control, forced health care programs, pro-abortion and the fact that he is a Mormon. McCain has voted pro-life at least 75 percent of the time and at least pays "lip service" to his Protestant faith. Hopefully, most will pay attention to the candidates' records rather than what they say on the campaign trail.

For as long as Paul and Huckabee stay in the race, McCain might still be blocked. Notice that there are no polls asking, "If John McCain and Ron Paul were the only choices ..." or, "If John McCain and Mike Huckabee were the only choices ..."

I am amazed at the arrogance of the media in reporting polling results. Essentially, they have taken the stance that Huckabee has been out of it since South Carolina after just one primary and three caucuses. The same media pundits pronounced Giuliani dead a day later. After Florida, they declared McCain the inevitable winner. While I don't agree that this is inevitable, I don't underestimate the bump this has given McCain in the polls. It's huge. It looks as though McCain has taken virtually all of Giuliani's remaining support -- about 15 percent -- and is now up to 43 percent after having been at between 18 to 28 percent for weeks. Romney's recent surge came from Fred Thompson's conservative supporters. Huckabee has been static at about 20 percent and Ron Paul at 5 percent. And unfortunately, many Republican primary voters follow the polls.

Meanwhile, Romney has successfully spun the myth that as governor of Massachusetts he was more conservative than Huckabee as governor of Arkansas. This is partially true and partially false. Huckabee cut taxes for working class people and eliminated the marriage penalty in Arkansas. Romney cut taxes on families and businesses in Massachusetts. Huckabee raised the state sales tax rate to pay for roads and education. Yet Romney appealed for billions of dollars in federal tax revenues to bail out Massachusetts during the "Big Dig" fiasco.

See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5572480

Romney was solidly pro-abortion and advocated homosexual civil unions, favored gun control and favored making health care mandatory in Massachusetts, while McCain had about an 80 percent conservative voting record rating by Democrat and Republican watchdog groups alike. McCain and Romney got into a big hissy fight over who is more conservative in last week's California debate, while Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee looked on disgusted at the media's hypocrisy in portraying the election as a "two man race." Of course, the media is going to prefer the two most liberal candidates!

The most arrogant of the media are conservative talk show hosts such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who think that Romney is much more conservative than McCain. Last week, I heard Hannity say that that Huckabee was only in the race to throw the election to McCain because they had secretly "cut a deal" to make Huckabee the running mate. That may be. But it also assumes that most Huckabee supporters would vote for Romney and not Ron Paul or McCain.

Why do Limbaugh and Hannity endorse Romney over McCain instead of Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee? The answer is simple. These men are not classical conservatives. They are not Christian conservatives. They are Neo-Cons -- men who have interpreted the liberalism of 20 years ago as the conservatism of today.

Today, Sean Hannity admires John F. Kennedy. Twenty years from now, will we find future Neo-Cons endorsing the policies of Bill Clinton? Neo-Cons have wreaked havoc on issues ranging from fiscal responsibility to abortion. For instance, Hannity, a Roman Catholic, says he is pro-life except for the cases of rape, incest, and danger to the health and life of the mother in the first trimester of pregnancy. Yet he pays lip service to wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Yet what does the Roe decision say? It says that a woman should have the right to an abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and danger to the health and life of the mother in the first trimester of pregnancy. Of course, these "exceptions" make up less than three percent of all abortions. Companion court cases such as Doe v. Bolton expanded the "right to abortion" to include any abortion that is deemed necessary by a licensed physician. Doe v. Bolton made the decision a "private matter between a woman and her doctor." So even an overturn of Roe would not stop abortion in any state that did not have laws in place that countered the "right to privacy" myth. We don't enforce the "right to privacy" in cases of drug abuse or suicide, yet we use it as an excuse for killing unborn baby boys and girls.

What we need is a Sanctity of Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. Mike Huckabee is the only candidate in the running who advocates this. Pro-life voters should know this. Ron Paul and Alan Keyes are the only other candidates still on the ballots in most states who have uncompromising pro-life credentials. If enough pro-life Republicans vote their conscience and support one of these candidates, enough delegates will be amassed between them to keep the nomination from Romney or McCain.

If you are pro-life, make your choice wisely.

Brevard County's 211 Hotline promotes abortion

Here's a radio show program about this important issue. Lawrence Salberg is at about the first five minutes talking about Brevard County's 211 hotline promoting baby killing with taxpayer money.

So download it, listen to it, stream it from your site if you can.

Below is Lawrence Salberg's email communication (in reverse thread order) with Brevard County trying to get them to remove the abortion referral from their 211 line.

See also Lawrence Salberg's Blog and hear an edited version of the interview. You will need to scoll to the bottom of the post.

If this upsets you, as well it should, and you want to take action, you can contact Ms. "Libby" at the following address, phone and email.

***********************
Libby Donoghue
Executive Director 2-1-1 Brevard Inc.
321.631.9290 ext. 202 tel
321.631.9291 fax
ldonoghue@211brevard.org
http://www.211brevard.org/

**********************

Hi All,

Ms. Donoghue of 211 Brevard apparently thinks she is funny. She removed WomanCare and added ... Planned Parenthood! Using my logic, she apparently thought that as long as she used a "non-profit" to help her little agenda, she'd be okay? ...

Full thread below for some who may not yet know about it.

- Lawrence Salberg


-------- Original Message --------

Mr. Salberg:

Our policy permits the inclusion of for-profit entities that provide “unique or specifically targeted services, or services that are otherwise scarce or difficult to access.” That said, we have learned that Planned Parenthood offers services in counties contiguous to Brevard. We have added their services to the database in lieu of WomanCare since it is also our policy to refer to not-for-profit services when available. Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.

Libby Donoghue
Executive Director
2-1-1 Brevard Inc.
321.631.9290 ext. 202 tel
321.631.9291 fax
ldonoghue@211brevard.org
http://www.211brevard.org/

*************

From: Lawrence Salberg
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 5:09 PM
To: Elizabeth B Donoghue
Cc: Lawrence Salberg
Subject: Re: Abortion Referral on 211 Brevard

Ms. Donoghue:

In speaking to numerous individuals this past week, there has been some concern over your statement here about the "agency's policy" as to what constitutes an appropriate organization to be included on 2-1-1 Brevard's referral list.

I've referred them to the policy that was very recently posted to the 211 Brevard website (previously and seemingly unavailable on the website).

Personally, I have no interest in playing games in determining whether or not a for-profit abortion clinic meets your and your board's self-created guidelines. Quite obviously, would there to be certain individuals in your organization (up to and including yourself perhaps) that simply had a political determination to allow abortion clinics as a valid referral source, a simple modification of your own internal guidelines, which can be amended without any outside approval, would be sufficient to warrant a previously "gray" area.

I fully intend to notify 211 Brevard's sources of funding, with the help of a few folks. You can expect some calls and letters asking for an explanation from your own funding sources. You can also expect other abortion clinics to inquire why this one particular clinic gets special treatment, merely for the maintainence of a Brevard area-code phone number.

However, prior to engaging others to pursue your organization's questionable use of federal and state monies to help refer abortions (and all without proper counseling or training in dealing with crisis pregnancies), I feel it is appropriate to open as many doors to communication as I can. Whether or not you and your board reciprocate is certainly your decision.

In that regard, and not meaning to be a "pest", I'm trying to determine under what part of your own policy permits the use of for-profit abortion facilities. Everyone who has read it seems to feel that it is specifically disallowed by your own policy. Indeed, it does seem confusing that your sole criterion for inclusion (your agency policy) seems to specifically EXCLUDE an abortion clinic's inclusion.

Under Section M of Exclusions, it outlines pretty much what I relayed to you in my first letter, specifically that if you include one, you'll have to include them all. If you include this abortion clinic (nothing more than a private medical practice (as defined by Florida state law), then you'll not only have to include all of them that "service Brevard County". There are about a dozen that would meet that standard. And of course, about 1,000 other private medical services that qualify equally under the law.

As a separate matter, there is a long and protracted history of abortion clincs (and in particular, this one) with skirting and abusing state and federal laws. Unlike a more reputable medical practice, abortion clinics routinely disregard federal and state reporting laws. Thus, under section A and F, such a 'business' would be excluded. I don't expect that you would know that, but it is a significant angle that others will be bringing forth.

There's quite a few other sections (G and E) that step in the gray area.

I would implore you to carefully consider how you'll be able to justify publicly your inclusion of WomanCare.

I don't know your background, nor do I want to sound insulting here, but I've had some experience in dealing with third parties who kind of "step into the poop" of getting too cozy with abortion clinics. Often, it stems from an innocent mistake or a bit of "politics over pragmatism". Very understandable - we all have our political positions and I can respect that.

But what these organizations fail to realize is how messy things get once the public gets involved. Over the many years that I've been involved with pro-life organizations and activities, I've come to the conclusion that it is so often better to spend time to try and reason upfront - not forever or without limit, but too often pro-life groups go into a full-scale assault before cooler heads can sit down and help others to see the danger (or error) of their ways. Although I think I've been more than clear, I'm not under the impression that you fully understand the ramifications of standing strong on this (not that you are doing that).

I want to be clear: There will indeed be a concerted effort to get 211 Brevard to drop WomanCare from its referral sources. I'm certainly no leader of it, but I do intend to facilitate information to others as much as possible. The stuff I've mentioned here is just the tip of the iceberg. We all have our lives and families to attend to and would much rather do that then spend time focusing on the otherwise good efforts of 211 Brevard.

If you would be so kind as to review your policy, I'd much rather have you the opportunity to retract privately than publicly. I think you understand that there is no way this is going to stand up to intense public scrutiny. Do the right thing now and use your own policy to exclude them. Everyone goes away happy. WomanCare knows full well they've been on thin ice and a prayer for a few years. They might balk, but keep in mind that they have absolutely no interest in seeing 211 Brevard staying in business. They are just using you as free advertising and extra business. If they lose that avenue, they might cry a bit, but, quite frankly, too bad, so sad. Tell them to pay for advertising like all other private for-profit businesses. It would be much better to lose an out-of-town business than lose something far greater.

Please consider your policy more deeply as well as all the possible ramifications of staying your present course. The only reason I'm writing this is at the counsel of others who feel that you and your board may not realize that you have an "easy out" of this with your own policy. Such an "easy out" becomes much more difficult when your backs are against the wall of public scrutiny and audits. From that regard, I guess it may be worth one final email to point out the above to you. At this point, only you, the board, and about a half-dozen others know. Perhaps it can stay that way, but I suppose that is up to you.

Sincerely,

Lawrence Salberg
Melbourne, FL

***************

Elizabeth B Donoghue wrote:
Mr. Salberg :

The 2-1-1 Board has considered your concerns. It is satisfied with the agency’s policy for determining what programs will be included in the database & will not be making any changes.


Libby Donoghue
Executive Director
2-1-1 Brevard Inc.
321.631.9290 ext. 202 tel
321.631.9291 fax
ldonoghue@211brevard.org
http://www.211brevard.org/

***********

From: Lawrence Salberg
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:53 PM
To: Elizabeth B Donoghue
Subject: Re: Abortion Referral on 211 Brevard

Ms. Donoghue :

Thank you for your reply.

Can you give me an estimate on the turnaround time that I should reasonable expect?

I'm not yet familiar with how often your board meets. I'm assuming you have (or will) be emailing them this information prior to the next meeting, so maybe it can be sufficiently handled without a formal meeting.

Anyway, as a matter of some urgency (as I see it anyway), I'm hoping this can be taken care of in the next few days.

Sincerely,

Lawrence Salberg
Melbourne , FL

*****************

Elizabeth B Donoghue wrote:
Dear Mr. Salberg :

Thank you for sharing your concerns. I will review them with our board of directors.

Libby Donoghue
Executive Director
2-1-1 Brevard Inc.
321.631.9290 ext. 202 tel
321.631.9291 fax
ldonoghue@211brevard.org
http://www.211brevard.org/


**************

From: Lawrence Salberg
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 12:19 PM
To: Elizabeth B Donoghue
Subject: Re: Abortion Referral on 211 Brevard

Ms. Donoghue :

Thank you for your timely response. However, I have several problems with this and your initial response here. I apologize for the length, but I feel it important to be very clear. I realize you are also accountable to others and I want you to be able to share my comments freely without burdening you with the need for further explanation to those persons. I hope I can accomplish that by explaining thoroughly my concerns here.

1) You indicate here that 211 Brevard is really nothing more than a yellow pages book. Of course, the county, state, and federal money spent on the 211 program is clearly not intended to replicate the functionality of the more than abundent sources of information already available such as phone books or Google.

If that were so, I'd surely like my business to be listed in 211 Brevard - at taxpayer expense - and listed on the internet website. I'm sure most business owners would like the same.

But the intent of the program is to act as a sort of crisis help line for those who are in need: families without food or a place to stay, those feeling suicidal, abused women, etc.

Having referals that go to a full-fledged for-profit abortion clinic is nothing more than a straightforward business referral.

In fact, considering that there are no open abortion clinics in Brevard, it is a bit suspect why 211 Brevard would just have "one" listed. I'm curious what the reaction of the other nearby clinics in Fort Pierce and Daytona Beach would think, not to mention the many other abortion clinics in Orlando, if they knew that government money in Brevard was being used to funnel business to one isolated clinic. I'm certainly not suggesting that (being pro-life), but having some first-hand experience in dealing with these abortion clinics, I can assure you that there is no more competitive industry in America . Once they learn of this, you'll be inundated and my "pro-life" concern will seem like a mere ripple in the raging storm.

I trust you see my point here: Once the government begans referring business to "for profit" entities, a huge whole is ripped into the fabric of the fine line between "government services" and outright competition.

2) Abortion, while "legal", is an elective surgery. When you take away the rhetoric from both sides about the "killing of a human life" or a "woman's choice", it is not too different from plastic surgery.

Again, we have an example of government money being used to funnel business to one particular business.

Surely, we can agree that the 211 Brevard operators are not licensed counselors and should show no partiality to a person's situation. Thus, I find it highly questionable that they would take on the liability of referring a woman to a for-profit business whose only function is to administer abortion procedures. These women, who are in a "crisis pregnancy" should be instead referred to a licensed counseling center or a center which focuses, without regard to profit, on women in such situations. They should not be given the name of an abortion clinic and told that they have been "helped" by the government.

3) You mention the referrals to "abortion alternatives". I don't know your street level knowledge of the situation, so excuse me if this is old hat to you. The sad reality is that "crisis pregnancy centers" are often forced to sometimes market themselves as "abortion alternatives" by either fiat from those that run these types of directories, or by the simple lack of knowledge in the public sphere. In other words, some directories (such as certain tele phone books) require it, refusing to place them more appropriately under "Crisis Pregnancy Counseling Centers". More often, market conditions force crisis pregnancy centers to do it because some people wouldn't know to look under the words "crisis" or "pregnancy" in a phone book or directory.

You might imagine a concerned parent trying to get quality information for their pregnant teenage daughter. Knowing that an abortion clinic is, by its very nature, going to be biased toward true alternatives (not to mention complicit in turning a blind-eye when it comes to required reporting of certain laws (such as statutory rape), the parent opens a phone book to look for help. Naturally, they check the "abortion" section first in their stress, so many CPC's are, by way of trying to help, forced to advertise in the field of "abortion alternatives".

Thus, while you seem to applaud 211 Brevard's 4:1 ratio of referrals to "abortion alternatives" over and above "abortion clinics", I don't find that amusing. As I previously stated, the situation is rather dire when you have 211 Brevard employees, using taxpayer funding, to directly refer patients, without proper understanding (and/or concern) for that person's overall well-being, to a full-fledged abortion clinic for the termination of their pregnancy.

The point I'm trying to make is that no one should be referring women in crisis pregnancies to abortion clinics without them having heard of ALL the options and without their personal situation being discussed with trained counselors. It isn't a matter of whether they should get the "abortion alternative" or the "abortion". It's a matter that they should be referred to a caring non-profit center where they can receive truthful and complete information BEFORE they make a decision to have an abortion. Should they then seek to still do so, there are plenty of ways for them to find the information necessary to do so - they surely should not be assisted by government-funded programs that were setup as a "lifeline" for those in dire need without resources.

4) Your numbers are a bit off.

First, I'm not sure if you are trying to persuade me that the impact of such referrals is "minimal" by referring to the 45 tele phone referrals to WomanCare last year, but if you ask me, that is 45 too many. That is 45 absolutely free, government-supported (and thus, taxpayer funded) referrals that a "for-profit" business was able to get out of 211 Brevard last year.

Aside from the obvious moral dillemmas placed on any pro-life staff (i.e. that they could be guilty of helping 45 babies to die), there is also the more obvious contrast of, again, a business that made approximately $500 per referral (a total of $22,000+) in one year - paid for by the money of Brevard taxpayers.

I shouldn't have to point out the long and extremely controversial history of government money being used to fund or refer patients for abortions. Federal money, in particular, has, for many years, oscillated back and forth whenever it was shown that taxpayer money was used for this purpose. Even when money has been sent to supposedly "multi-service family planning clincs" (such as the kind run by Planned Parenthood), it has caused great stirs and controversy. Simply put, no matter your personal beliefs, the simple fact is that over one-half of the population is "pro-life" (or "anti-abortion") and does not want their personal money going to fund such things.

Second, I too have your report. What you failed to mention here was that out of 1,584 "programs" in the 211 Brevard database, that WomanCare was viewed online at the website 133 times, making it the 15th most popular online visit on your website. In other words, it was in the top ONE percentile of all programs viewed online. While I don't believe all that web traffic resulted in direct referrals (as did the tele phone calls), there's no doubt that it is a popular destination for visitors to your website. 1,568 other programs were viewed LESS than WomanCare. That is stunning.

Additionally, going back to your tele phone referrals which you seem to minimize, the reality is that even with "only" 45 referrals to WomanCare, they were STILL the 169th most popular referral out of that same 1,584 "programs". placing it in the 11th percentile of tele phone referrals - right next to the Melbourne Public Library and the above the Better Business Bureau of Central Florida. In other words, WomanCare's referral rate by 211 Brevard is clearly significant when compared to the other organizations, most of whom are legitimate not-for-profit entities and government services.

Looked at another way, out of the 45,500 logged tele phone referrals to 211 Brevard last year, one out of every 100 tele phone referrals was sent to WomanCare.

In summary, considering the funding of 211 Brevard, I would like to politely remind you that even though your personal preference may be to continue referrals to WomanCare (and I'm not suggesting that it is to do so), I think as Executive Director, it is incumbent that you bring this matter to the attention of the board of 211 Brevard.

As you know, many different funding sources, including the cities of Melbourne , Satellite Beach , Cocoa , and so forth, all assist to help fund 211 Brevard. State and federal money is also used greatly and I think it is imperative that you consider the representative nature of all that money.

By this I mean that the money represents the "will of the people" insofar as we understand the program to be purposed. We all support 211 Brevard and are happy to pay for its existence so that we can feel good that we are able to get the right people to the right services, particularly in a time of personal crisis, or after a disaster like a hurricane.

However, no one notified us that for-profit abortion clinics would be one of the many services listed and referred to with our tax dollars. I personally don't think it needs to become a "showdown" or anything crazy like that. I just think that, with a bit of a review by those with some experience and wisdom, good people will come to the simple conclusion that abortion clinic referrals are not inline with the program's goals, that it would be a slap-in-the-face to the many prolife people in Brevard who don't want their money to be mingled with the death of a baby (as they see it), and that the information is freely and easily available elsewhere to those who elect such a procedure.

I trust you will take this matter seriously and get back to me at your earliest convenience on the steps that are being taken to examine this matter. I appreciate your time and if there is anything I can do to expedite this issue, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Lawrence Salberg
Melbourne , FL

***************

Elizabeth B Donoghue wrote:

Dear Mr. Salberg,

Like the local tele phone book, internet, 4-1-1 or a community library, 2-1-1 is a non-partisan, non-idealistic and non-judgmental information source for many governmental, faith-based and community based health and human services. Our mission is to connect people to governmental, health or human services that are available to people in Brevard County . For the most part, these are services located in the county. In some instances, services are not located here but are available and of interest to local residents – these may be located in adjacent counties or may be internet-based services (e.g., online support groups).

Our 2-1-1 specialists generally provide abortion referrals as the result of a direct request (e.g., ‘may I have the number to…”), never as a recommendation. You may also have noted that our database contains information on abortion alternatives. Of more than 45,000 referrals made to nearly 1,200 programs last year, 45 were made to WomanCare and over 200 to programs listed as abortion alternatives.

Sincerely,

Libby Donoghue
Executive Director
2-1-1 Brevard Inc.
321.631.9290 ext. 202 tel
321.631.9291 fax
ldonoghue@211brevard.org
http://www.211brevard.org/

***************

From: Lawrence Salberg
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 4:40 PM
To: Elizabeth B Donoghue
Subject: Abortion Referral on 211 Brevard

Ms. Donoghue :

I'm writing to inquire regarding the use of the 211 service to refer people to abortion clincs. Currently, the service lists an abortion clinic on their list of services that they refer to.

Can you please help me understand how this is possible? I don't understand how the county could be funding referrals to abortion clinics in the Orlando area.

Thank you.

Lawrence Salberg
Melbourne , FL

When pro-abortionists finally accept the humanity of the unborn child ...

You may know that I have some controversial pro-life videos at YouTube. One shows the dangers of abortion using several 911 ambulance calls to the Aware Woman abortion clinic against a montage of emergency vehicle footage. I made this video when I owned the property across the street in Melbourne, Florida.

Young people are no longer using the line, "My body, my choice." They now fully accept the humanity of their unborn child. In the 1970s and '80s, we thought that the victory would come once people came to that realization -- "But this is a human being!" Then America would become pro-life. "Who would kill their own baby if they really knew the truth?" In our eyes these women were deceived and the abortion doctors were the monsters.

But everything has changed. Read the folowing response carefully. Emphasis added in red is mine.

DebKOrah writes:
Marked as spam

no one has the right to decide for what a woman does with her child.

you do not own her, and therefore, you cannot dictate what she does with her baby.

it doesn't matter if the girl was raped, she'll be killed if she has the baby the baby is retarded phsyically or mentally, it's the woman's choice.

no religion, husband/boyfriend, mother, father, can dictate a choice.

if it's coming out of OUR womb, it's our choice.

So it's all about control. If you have control over your unborn baby girl, then it is your right and choice to kill her? Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. It's an attitude we are seeing more and more.

DebKOrah admits that she is killing a "child" and a "baby." When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, the preferred term was a "fetus" or a "blob of tissue." Now we can see a fully developed human being. Does this dissuade us? The depths of human selfishness and depravity know no limits. I fear for our culture when postmodern teens claim the right to kill their "child" and "baby" with such a cavalier attitude.

That Swiss Hermit strikes again!

A Review of Jeff Sharlet’s recent essay in Harper’s Magazine
“Through a Glass, Darkly: How the Christian right is reimagining U.S. history”
By Jay Rogers

Here’s another several-months-old news item that belongs in the Johnny Carson “I DID NOT Know THAT!” category. I suppose if I had been paying more attention, I would have seen this article when it came out in December 2006.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/12/0081322

The Chalcedon Foundation even has a lengthy review of the article on their website and that is how I became aware of it:

http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=2701

Harper’s, one of America’s oldest magazines, which has been published since 1850, ran a feature article, 11 pages of dense print, warning of the dangers of “Christian maximalism” — the effort to “conform every aspect of life to God.” The chief culprit? Rousas John Rushdoony who “laid the right cornerstone of modern homeschooling” in his books and “Christian jihadi lectures” on American history.

Here is how Harper’s Jeff Sharlett sees it:

Rushdoony took the vague sentiments of early twentieth-century fundamentalism and found sources for them in American history, creating an intellectual foundation for the movement’s political ambitions … The Christian conservatives of his day, Rushdoony believed, had let themselves be bound by secularism. They railed against its tyranny, but addressed themselves only to issues set aside by secularism as ‘moral’—the best minds of a fundamentalist generation burned themselves to furious cinders battling nothing more than naughty movies and heavy petting. Rushdoony did not believe in such skirmishes. He wanted a war, and he summoned the spirits of history to the struggle at hand.

In tandem with Rushdoony was that erstwhile “Swiss hermit” Francis Schaeffer.* According to the article:

I read the works of Rushdoony’s most influential student, the late Francis Schaeffer, an American whose Swiss mountain retreat, L’Abri (“The Shelter”), served as a Christian madrasah at which a generation of fundamentalist intellectuals studied an American past “Christian in memory.” And I read Schaeffer’s disciples: Tim LaHaye, who, besides coauthoring the hugely popular Left Behind series of novels, has published an equally fantastical work about history called Mind Siege. And David Barton, the president of a history ministry called WallBuilders (as in, to keep the heathen out). And Charles Colson, who, in titles such as How Now Shall We Live? (a play on Schaeffer’s How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture) and Against the Night: Living in the New Dark Ages, searches from Plato to the American Founders to fellow Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy for the essence of the Christian “worldview,” a vision of an American future so entirely Christ-filtered that beside it “theocracy”—the clumsy governance of priestly bureaucrats—seems a modest ambition. “Theocentric” is the preferred term, Randall Terry, another Schaeffer disciple who went on to found Operation Rescue, told me. “That means you view the world in His terms. Theocentrists don’t believe man can create law. Man can only embrace or reject law.

After a three page dissertation on Rushdoony, Schaeffer and Van Til, the article reaches its focal point – a five page description of a pro-life event and prayer meeting led by none other than Operation Save America (Operation Rescue) leaders Flip Benham and Rusty Thomas.

But wait. The conspiracy soup gets thicker. In my personal conversations with Rusty, he credits Franco Gennaro as the fellow Tampa pastor who got him involved with full-time pro-life activism. What Franco did was to show some Tampa area pastors an 80-minute pro-life video produced by Eric Holmberg called The Massacre of Innocence. Not ironically enough, a rewrite of that script posted on my website has garnered me more hate mail than any other article at http://www.forerunner.com/.

Rusty once said to me, “I’ve never met Eric, but tell him that if I do the first thing I am going to do is punch him in the nose … and then give him a big hug … because he ruined my life!!”

The upshot of all of this is that to most Americans, names such as Van Til, Schaeffer, Rushdoony, Flip Benham, Rusty Thomas and Eric Holmberg aren’t even a byword. The anti-theocratic left insists on “propping up Rushdoony as a fringe lunatic, and “a bogeyman.” According to Jeff Sharlet, they are missing what matters most:

That reading of Rushdoony—by liberal critics and conservative apologists—misses what matters about his revival of providential history. He derived from the past not just a quaint hero worship but also a deep knowledge of history’s losers, forgotten Americans—minor political figures such as John Winthrop and Timothy Dwight and all the soldiers who fought first for God, then country, the rugged men of the past who carried the theocratic strand through from the beginning. The Christian conservatives of his day, Rushdoony believed, had let themselves be bound by secularism. They railed against its tyranny, but addressed themselves only to issues set aside by secularism as “moral”—the best minds of a fundamentalist generation burned themselves to furious cinders battling nothing more than naughty movies and heavy petting. Rushdoony did not believe in such skirmishes. He wanted a war, and he summoned the spirits of history to the struggle at hand.

In any case, a quick reading of the Harper’s article along with ought to give us virtual threads of new parody material.

- Jay Rogers

_____________

* Why do I call Schaeffer “that Swiss hermit”? Here’s a not-too-brief word of explanation. A lot of my closest friends don’t know this, but I was named in two frivolous lawsuits written by none other than the lawyer-architect of Roe v. Wade, LeRoy Spurgeon Lucas.

“Frivolous” is too weak a word – it was actually a hysterical screed aimed at making pro-lifers fear lawsuits. One of Lucas’ clients in this frivolous lawsuit campaign was none other than abortionist James Scott Pendergraft, who was later convicted of extortion and sent federal prison as a result of one of these lawsuits.

Lucas’ lawsuit against the Melbourne pro-life activists included this line:

Mr. Raney compiles this information in part for an imagined day of reckoning when all abortion doctors, patients, and accessories will face their war crimes holocaust trials under a new fundamentalist theocracy, as proclaimed by the Swiss hermit Francis Schaeffer.

This gave a friend of ours, M.J.C., an opportunity to opine:

By the way, you have got to give Lucas credit for making Francis Schaeffer look like a crazed Hitlerian unibomber with the use of a few choice words — Why in the name of St. Thomas More did Herr Lucas include the fact that Francis Schaeffer was Swiss? Are we allowed to include little impertinent facts about people when we refer to them in court documents? Maybe we should refer to Lucas in the future as "Suspected Homosexual, Esquire Lucas."

Later, I did that very thing in an online discussion board. A lurker forwarded it to Lucas and I got a reply threatening me with another lawsuit! Sometimes I think I should write my autobiography part one chronicling only some of the funny, odd and unlikely things that have happened to me. Of course, no one wants to read about little old me, but in the off chance that I become well-known one day, a fast-paced comedic memoir will have already been penned.

P.S. I recently asked M.J.C. to compile our email conversations from this time. Here are some of that correspondence in reverse chronological order. Although it’s a little esoteric to those outside of our group, if you have the patience to read through, it is hysterically funny – if you like overblown pretentious satire and crazy madcap comedy that is.

_____________

To: jrogers@forerunner.com
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 23:12:56 -0400
Subject: 'suspected homosexual, Herr Lucas'
From: M.J.C.

Jay, it's a long sequence, from bottom to top, how we got to the Lucas list of infamies.

...

----- original message -----
From: MJC@...
To: jrogers@forerunner.com
Cc: mtraney@...
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:23:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Emails from *Roe v. Wade* lawyer Roy Lucas

Jay,

1) He said to send no "armed shooters." Are there any other kind of shooters? Sounds like an ingenious rhetorical trap. He's reportedly good at this sort of thing, so let's think this one through.

2) Did you send some message to Lucas letting him in on our pet "characterizations" of our pro-choice friends? How did he know Pat Windle is a corpulent witch, and what does he mean that you "mischaracterize" him? Has there been a leak????

Anyhow, he apparently wants you to stop calling him names. If you must retreat from that incendiary term, "suspected homosexual," maybe you can use some of the following literary helpers I've composed for you.

PS - Jay, thanks for the input on the "Spy House" menu. I like your style, you Magnificent Roundhead.

--------------

New, previously unused modifiers for our pal, Herr Lucas:

(*note; many of these make no sense. So what? neither does Lucas.)

the fanatical "Know-nothing", Herr Lucas
the shrill, deluded blasphemer, Herr Lucas
that Esquire of shallow wit, Herr Lucas
the motley jester, inventor of his own world "history", Herr Lucas
only the sad shell of what was once a big fool, Herr Lucas
that slave of feminist propaganda, Herr Lucas
that master of tortured hyperbole, Herr Lucas
that mother of bombastic metaphor, Herr Lucas
the wide eyed religious nut, Herr Lucas
the broken abortophile gramophone, Herr Lucas
that wicked Bastille, Herr Lucas
that paradox of putrid reasoning, Herr Lucas
that vile, malevolent historical redactor, Herr Lucas
that unsmart person, Herr Lucas
that dummy, Herr Lucas
that weak cup of hysteria tea, Herr Lucas
that rotten oyster of a scholar, Herr Lucas
that morally chipped plate, Herr Lucas
that rabid hamster of rhetoric, Herr Lucas
that crazy mixed up kook, Herr Lucas
that inflamed armpit of a man, Herr Lucas
that empty-headed little *follower*, Herr Lucas
that giggling groper of glop, Herr Lucas
that sheaf of soiled blotting paper, Herr Lucas
that animated dose of ipecac, Herr Lucas
that cigarette, Herr Lucas (note: in England, cigs are called *fags*)
that purveyor of ignorance, Herr Lucas
that spotted kangaroo of a lawyer, Herr Lucas
that 40-watt Dr. Zhivago, Herr Lucas
that prancing minx of legalese , Herr Lucas
that windowless hallway, Herr Lucas
that bowl of hate chowder, Herr Lucas
that oily spot on Windle's bloody bib, Herr Lucas
that rainbow colored hairpiece, Herr Lucas
that worker of petty iniquity, Herr Lucas
that one legged ladder, Herr Lucas
that plagiarizer of restroom vandalism, Herr Lucas
that butcher of the innocent English language, Herr Lucas
that toothsome trollop of threatmongery, Herr Lucas
that victim of "medieval persecution envy", Herr Lucas
that gullible, anticlerical parrot, Herr Lucas
that throwback to the stone ages, Herr Lucas
that clanging cymbal of antichrist, Herr Lucas
too silly to be taken seriously, too wicked to be laughed at, Herr Lucas
Windle's servile remora fish, Herr Lucas
my favorite Martian, Herr Lucas

----- original message -----
From: jrogers@forerunner.com (Jay Rogers)
To: jrogers@forerunner.com (Jay Rogers)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:23:33 -0500
Subject: Emails from *Roe v. Wade* lawyer Roy Lucas

Here are two emails I recently received from Roy Lucas, the lawyer who filed the winning brief in *Roe v Wade*,

Lucas also wrote the lawsuit, *Aware Woman Center for Choice v. Raney, Rogers, et al.*

Along with about two dozen pro-lifers in Melbourne, Florida, I am being sued by the Aware Woman abortion clinic (in part) because I own the house across the street from them. I also maintain a web site that chronicles the abortion industry at its worst.

The lawsuit, which is too surreal to be described fully here, can be read in full at:

http://www.forerunner.com/fyi/

Lucas sent the following two personal emails taunting me, commanding me to hand over evidence to him, and other such "advice.

I forward the following two emails from Herr Lucas, because I think the Christian community needs to discern the spirit of the pro-abortion movement's lawyers and legal strategies.

- Jay Rogers

Psalm 7

*************************

>From: OWLLAWYER@aol.com
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 23:36:39 EST
To: jrogers@forerunner.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: federal complaint in AWCC v Raney, Rogers et al Status: U

Dear John C 'Jay' Rogers:

By now you have been served with the complaint in the federal case where you are a named defendant. When and if you have legal counsel, please have them contact me. I know you have a copy of the complaint because it is posted on your website.

Please be advised that any and all real and personal property you own, control, or have an interest in is now at risk for the satisfaction of future judgments. Lis pendens will be filed.

Send me a complete copy of your personal liability, homeowners, and vehicular liability insurance policies.

Your insurance agents and carriers should be notified of the current and the likely next two lawsuits you will be receiving. I will do the notifying for the victims of your actions. You may be able to shift some of your liability to those carriers for your many wrongful acts over the past several years.

You could avoid many worlds of grief by confessing the truth and extent of your wrongdoing before a court reporter.

Injunctive relief also will soon be sought against you for your 'hit list' type activities, the Killing Place mailbox, and more.

Don't even think about harassing me or sending any armed shooters after me. That would get you a lot of time in a federal prison with unpleasant roommates. The lawyers who would step in behind me might be much worse for you and yours.

You have wrongly been characterizing me personally in your communications in a defamatory and libelous manner. That must stop and be retracted, or you will suffer the legal consequences. Now is your opportunity to tell me what you have said, to whom, and the basis for your defamatory remarks. At least you did not call me a corpulent warlock, or make slurs about the 15th versus 17th centuries. I keep getting the Inquisition mixed up with the later burnings of Copernican scholars and suspected witches by those delightful Christian believers in the flat Earth theory.

How about that Portland jury? And the Dallas jury? And the many others? It's time to rethink, or perhaps think through for the very first time what you are doing, and get a meaningful life, do something for the future of human civilization.

Roy Lucas
OwlLawyer@AOL.com

*******************************

From: OWLLAWYER@aol.com
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:01:12 EST
To: jrogers@forerunner.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: 11/93 article on Buffer Zone
Status: U

Dear Jay:

You still have posted the 11/93 article on the ill-fated Cheffer decision.

That is misleading, if not downright wrong and dumb.

Cheffer has been subsequently rejected by more judges than you can imagine. It was vacated twice, remanded, dismissed, and then the Christian lawyers' requests for fees were rejected out of hand. It's over. You lost.

How about a truthful followup now, over five years latter. Is there not truth in Christianity? Just because Swaggart was a liar, Bakker was a liar, Robertson has delusions about meteorites, Oral Roberts had hallucinations, and Terry was a used car & tire salesman speaking in tongues, is no reason for you to bear false witness about the fate of the buffer zone. It is alive and well, and not mentally ill.

Continuing to publish that article is like bragging about the Pope overruling Magna Carta, or continuing to condemn Galileo and Bruno.

How many times did you cross over into the buffer zone to make unwanted contact with AWCC patients?

Roy Lucas
OwlLawyer@AOL.com

Pro-Life Priest Found Not Guilty of Federal Charges

This is very great news. I had heard the judge in the case was a feminist pro-abortion advocate.

Pro-Life Priest Found Not Guilty of Federal Charges

OMAHA, Neb., Apr. 5 /Christian Newswire/ -- A jury deliberating for three hours found Fr. Norman Weslin not guilty today of charges he violated the Federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

Weslin was arrested last April when he entered the Bellevue abortion mill run by LeRoy Carhart, the nationally known abortionist who has twice defended partial-birth abortion to the U.S. Supreme Court. Weslin had knelt in prayer inside a security vestibule and never actually entered the clinic's office. While inside he occasionally spoke through a mail slot asking women to spare their children from abortion.

Weslin had faced 18 months in a federal prison, three years probation, and a $25,000 fine if convicted.

Is abortion legal through all nine months of pregancy in all 50 states for any reason?

I wrote in one of my video blogs:

"Abortion is legal through all nine months of pregancy in all 50 states for any reason."

I was then corrected by VOMUTE who wrote the following:

False-
In the U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade it simply stated that abortion is legal by the U.S. constitution but abortion laws may be restricted by the states to varying degrees. So yes, abortion is legal, by the U.S. constitution. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t state laws which restrict late term abortions. It’s a “STATE’S” decision to what extent those laws are carried out. I assume the state you live in (as nearly every state does) has certain restrictions and laws that deal with abortion such as parental notification for minors, mandating the disclosure of abortion risk information to patients prior to treatment and yes to which trimester the abortion may take place in. I hope you noticed my emphasis on state. If you want those questions answered I recommend looking at your states laws. If you dislike what you find I recommended writing your congressmen and address the situation. You seem so scientifically and medically knowledgeable about the subject I’m surprised you didn’t know the legalities as well.

I’m also surprised while acquiring your wealth of knowledge you didn’t learn how to correctly spell PREGNANCY.

Pro-abortion? Say what? I’ve never heard of a pro-abortion organization group. Is it a cult? Is there really a group who’s promoting abortions? Are they professional abortionists? I feel a little dumb now. I'm making the assumption that you're referring to people who consider themselves "pro-choice" which is entirely different from being "pro-abortionist". Choice means Choosing- having the ability to choose not promoting something. Just as Anti-abortion doesn’t mean anti-choice. Before you decided to regurgitate what the media, church, parents tell you to I would recommend getting educated on the subject.

My response:

I love it when people tell me how ignorant I am and that I didn't research my "facts," I need to get educated, etc.

As Johnny Carson would say, "Here's where you are WRONG, pro-abortion breath!"

With Doe v. Bolton, the access to abortion on demand was extended to all 50 states at any time during the pregnancy for any reason whatsoever,

With any "state restriction," the exception clause "danger to the life and health of the mother" is always required.

So all an eight-and-a half-month pregnant mother has to do is tell her doctor she is thinking about suicide or that she is having mental health problems due to her pregancy and it automatically becomes legal. In fact, many abortionists tell their patients to say this.

I call these doctors "pro-abortion" because they want child murder legalized through all nine months for any reason.

That's the reality. You may think I am an extremist, but I am just telling the truth.

Thank you for teaching me the correct spelling of pregnancy.

"I DID NOT know that!"

Amazing Grace: The story of William Wilberforce

Amazing Grace: The story of how William Wilberforce, John Newton and Olaudah Equiano stopped the English slave trade in the early 19th century.

Another subtitle to this movie could be: How a British production company produced an uncannily evangelical film. If you haven’t seen Amazing Grace, go to your local theater this week and see it. It’s not likely to be in theaters for long. It’s not the most riveting action packed film in the world and at over two hours it drags on in places.

As a low production budget film, it is excellent on several counts. The main one being its fairly accurate portrayal of the faith of William Wilberforce and how he was initially torn between a calling to the ministry and political life as a member of the British Parliament at the turn of the 19th century.

The best lines of the film for me were delivered by the abolitionists sent to recruit Wilberforce to the cause, “Mr. Wilberforce, we understand you’re having problems choosing whether to do the work of God or that of a political activist. We humbly suggest, that you can do both.”

But this is not intended as a review. Pro-life advocates have long held Wilberforce as a patron saint of sorts. Here I want to outline how a “Model for Reformation” in the life of Wilberforce. The obvious parallel between Wilberforce and the modern pro-life movement is how the two are set apart by almost exactly 200 years – February 23rd, the films release date, being the 200th anniversary of the initial legislation against the slave trade. The full ban on slavery did not take effect in Great Britain until July 26th, 1833. Ironically, Wilberforce died of influenza three days after the news reached him.

On a side note, most people don’t know that today, even at a conservative estimate, there are 27,000,000 slaves worldwide. This is far more than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. For more information, I encourage you to check out the excellent web site: www.williamwilberforce.com

A lot of people also don’t know that William’s son, Samuel Wilberforce, debated with Thomas Huxley, criticizing the theories in Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

Here again, there are obvious parallels to the debate over abortion -- the murder of hundreds of millions of children in our lifetime -- the greatest holocaust in world history.

We see in the British anti-slavery campaign a slow toil fraught with seemingly endless setbacks. Almost all hope seemed lost during the Napoleonic Wars, when members of Parliament argued that a withdrawal from the slave trade would guarantee a French dominance in West Indian plantation profits.

Wilberforce still plodded on with only a handful of supporters. According to Wikipedia.com:

“A change of tactics, which involved introducing a bill to ban British subjects from aiding or participating in the slave trade to the French colonies, was advised by maritime lawyer James Stephen in early 1806. It was a smart move, as the majority of the ships were, in fact, now flying under American flags and were manned by British crews, sailing out of Liverpool. The new Foreign Slave Trade Act was quickly passed and the tactic proved successful. The new legislation effectively prohibited two-thirds of the British slave trade. This was in part enabled by Lord Nelson's victory at the Trafalgar which had given Britain the sea power to ensure that any ban could be enforced.”

What this did was to hit the slave trading industry in its most vulnerable spot -- its profits. With the money of the slave trading lobbyists cut off, Parliament was able to proceed to pass a more universal Slave Trade Act just a year later.

We see a modern parallel in the federal law, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) and other federal and state legislation that limits the abortion industry. Such laws are flouted and violated at every turn by killing chains such as Planned Parenthood and others such as those owned locally by Dr. James Scott Pendergraft. If we will simply keep pressing our advantage, it may be possible to shut down many if not most of the clinics who perform dangerous surgery as an outpatient procedure.

In the meantime, the negative press generated by abortuaries that routinely violate health and medical codes, doctors who delivery viable babies alive and leave them to die, and other atrocities, can work in favor of turning public opinion. This strategy of enlightening the public to what is really happening can work. Even if we put only a small dent in the abortion industry due to litigation, we can change public opinion. Even “pro-choice” Americans draw the line at infanticide. Yet most are unaware that abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason.

The tactic should proceed as follows:

1. The public will be made aware that actual infanticide is going on in these killing places. Abortionists will be prosecuted.
2. A variety of other health and medical code violations in these killing chains will be publicized. Abortionists will be prosecuted.
3. Public sentiment against abortions of viable unborn children will rise as stories of premature birth success stories are published.
4. State by state, second and third trimester abortions will be outlawed as infanticide.
5. State by state, abortion can be pushed back to the original intent of Roe v. Wade, which is to limit abortion to the less than three percent of all abortions currently procured for the so-called “exceptions.”
6. A Constitutional Amendment banning all abortion will be enacted.

I have heard many pro-lifers hold a hard-line against this type of “incremental” approach as cowardly compromise and an accommodation with the culture of death. I myself am sympathetic to this viewpoint. However, what we need to be aware of is the vast amount of money taken in by the killing chains owned by Planned Parenthood. These resources are used in lobbying and the creation of false polls, such as those by Planned Parenthood’s Alan Guttmacher Institute, which effectively maintain the status quo distortion of “a woman’s right to choose” even though a vast majority of Americans support a ban on second and third trimester abortions and abortion in the first trimester as a matter of convenience.

Another thing that convinces me that we are at a pivotal point, is the number of recent news stories that are systematically exposing abortion -- at least in the latter stages of pregnancy -- as infanticide in the national consciousness. I believe that this is the work of God now moving through the Holy Spirit to change the American consciousness. Our “ground troops” need to seize our advantage even while the “air support” is still striking. I also find it significant that many of these stories are focusing the nation’s attention on Florida and especially Orlando and Miami.

A British newspaper recently carried the story of the huge number of babies who are surviving late term abortions and a current move is under way to rewrite abortion laws in that country. I encourage you to go to this link and check out the comments – all by Europeans who are mostly “pro-choice” -- that show that this is pushing people slowly but surely toward a pro-life position.

Another story that astonished Americans was the Miami, Florida baby born at 20-weeks who has survived even though she weighed less than one pound at birth. This baby was actually younger than Baby Rowan who was left to die in an Orlando killing center owned by James Pendergraft.

As William Wilberforce was forced to alter tactics in order to win, we must now seek to break the back of at least one-third of the abortion industry and cripple their financial resources. Once the “abortion-for-profit” killing places are limited, we will be better able to work on changing the hearts of churches. The initial step can be won a lot sooner than most people think. We actually have cut the abortion rate by one-third in America due in part to the efforts of Crisis Pregnancy Centers and street activism. With public opinion on our side, we could gain further ground if we will keep pressing our advantage.

What is most amazing to me is that in April 1791, when Wilberforce introduced the first Parliamentary Bill to abolish the slave trade, it was easily defeated by 163 votes to 88. Yet Wilberforce continued to move bills throughout his career until on February 23, 1807, a bill limiting slave trade was carried by 283 votes to 16.

We can expect to see much the same turning of the tide in the pro-life effort if we will only remain faithful and settle for nothing less than a total outlawing and criminalization of abortion without exception or apology.

Joel and Ariel's Pro-life Reality Program

Here is the new and improved version of the Joel and Ariel MTV pro-life video. Joel and Ariel are brother and sister pro-life missionaries who started taking part in sidewalk counseling and peaceful protest at abortion clinics when they were teenagers. The video was done at a time when a lot of sidewalk and street activism at abortion clinics was being squelched by the media's portrayal of a few violent protesters.

In the early '90s several doctors and abortion clinic workers were shot. However, when compared with other social protest movements in American history, the pro-life movement has been by far the most peaceful. This video was shown repeatedly on the Unfiltered program and went a long way to show young people what really happens in front of abortion clinics.

Ariel ended the piece by saying that "we are just peaceful people" and challenged viewers to come out to the abortion clinics to see for themselves what is happening and not to accept any "pro-choice" media bias. We know that the video actually led to some young people getting involved in pro-life activism.

Since I was a full-time Christian worker who actually owned the property across the street from the Aware Woman abortion clinic, I taped about half of the "b-roll" shots you will see in the video. It was interesting because at the time I was praying about moving to Cantonment, Florida to work with Reel to Real Ministries in order to get training in non-linear video production. I took it as a small miracle (or more accurately: a providential event) that the first production I helped with ended up being a positive portrayal of pro-life activism on MTV's reality show Unfiltered -- of all programs!

We have had this video clip on The Forerunner Pro-life Videos website for the past seven years. Then recently I asked Joel and Ariel to offer a critique of the content and quality of the program. Watch the program and see for yourself. And I also challenge YOU to come out to the local abortion clinic to see what happens on a "killing day." I don't think everyone is called to do sidewalk counseling or be there on a weekly basis (as I was 24/7 for a few years) but it is always a powerful life-changing experience to take even a small part in saving a human life.

Christianity is Rational

Over the weekend, some central Florida pro-life activists got to hear John Ensor and Jay Grimstead speak about the underlying philosophy of abortion and why the church has been straight-jacketed into accepting fallacies that make it impossible for us to resist what is otherwise a completely irrational argument in favor of legalized abortion. Many Americans have bought the lie and others who are still pro-life in their hearts have mentally accommodated the philosophical presuppositions of this lie.

A good example of this irrationality has been dialogues on this blog, my discussion boards (and now my YouTube V-Log) with atheists, skeptics, pro-abortionists and neo-pagans. I’ve written recently about the “stupidity” of the “Jesus-myth” theorists. Here I want to deal briefly with the irrationality of the pro-abortionists.

We began in December to edit together a series of 911 calls, ambulance footage, testimonies of women damaged by abortion, pregnancy counselors who have witnessed the damage, and a story about Baby Rowan who was born alive and then left to die in an abortion clinic.

The typical response from the pro-abortionists is to simply say that we are biased religious kooks who are telling lies to advance our own agenda. The following is one such exchange:

yuyukachoo wrote:

Yeah, just continue to blather on about the horrors of medical procedures you don't even understand while blocking any comments you can't seem to come up with a retort to. Intelligence at its best!

jcr4runner wrote:

Go to: http://womenscenter.com/abortion_methods.html

It's the web site of an abortion clinic.

Scroll down to where it says "complications of abortion." They list all the "horrors" that we talk about in the video as genuine medical risks of abortion. The statistics and medical risks of abortion are so well-documented that even some "honest" abortion doctors tell their patients the facts.

If you don't believe me, go to this page and read the page on the risks of an abortion from the doctor who runs an abortion clinic.

Read it and tell me who is blathering now. I am sorry if I offend you, but your comments are really ignorant. You argue from emotional bias, not rational thought.

yuyukachoo wrote:

You're the one using religion as a basis for some sort of argument. I'd say that's pretty irrational.

Jay Rogers wrote:

Christianity is rational. What is irrational is the modern reliance on a Kantian, Hegelian dualistic view of the universe that excludes what we cannot measure scientifically as "irrational." Jesus Christ the Living Word (or the LOGOS) is the unifying principle of all human knowledge and is the basis for all rational thought.

yuyukachoo wrote:

Explain to me how a giant man in the sky is a rational thing to believe, and how disregarding scientific research is as well.

Jay Rogers wrote:

Christianity does not deny scientific and rational thought. All philosophy up until the time of Immanuel Kant was rational in nature. Western philosophy was divided into two groups -- Christian and Greek pagan. But both groups were looking for a “unifying principle” that would unite the study of both the seen material and the unseen spiritual worlds. To Christians, this unifying principle was Christ, since the LOGOS was both a linguistic (Biblical literature) and logical (the God-man Jesus Christ as a real historical teacher) answer to the problem of the natural/spiritual dichotomy.

When Immanuel Kant wrote Critique of Pure Reason, he rejected the idea that there can be a principle that unites all fields of knowledge. He was actually arguing for an “irrational” system that tells us that we must forever accept a total dichotomy between the visible and invisible worlds. Modern philosophy and liberal theology now sees the two worlds (the noumenal world and the phenomenal world) as two airtight compartments. If the spiritual world exists, we cannot know anything about it through rational thought according to Kant.

Georg Hegel came along soon after and proposed that all truth is a synthesis between thesis and antithesis. That is, there are no objective truths, just what we end up agreeing upon after argument and debate. In fact, we make up new truths in the process. Thus Kant and Hegel together ended up creating an irrational basis for human philosophy that can never explain how the universe fits together as a whole.

Even in the world of science, history, education, literature, and politics, people now see a divided universe that exists in many small compartments, but cannot be understood as a whole. People seek to understand the "many" while denying the "one."

Hitler was simply echoing Hegelian thought when he said: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” and “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think” and “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.”

In other words, the “lie” becomes the new “truth” if most people will just believe it. This is exactly what Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood and the abortion advocates have understood all too well.

What Kant and Hegel did was to open the door to irrational thought in the form of existentialism and postmodernism. In fact, we are already well down the slippery slope to irrational philosophy. Or as Lewis Carroll wrote:

“The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down a very deep well.”

You post is an example of this. You start off by saying that our statistics on abortion are “blather on medical procedures you don’t even understand.”

When I cite rational, scientific and empirical evidence that come from abortion providers’ own literature, what you do is retreat into an emotional screed against religion as being irrational, yet I didn’t even use religion to try to prove that abortion is damaging to women. I know it is damaging because I’ve witnessed it with my own eyes (and video camera). I’ve researched the data, the empirical evidence and testimonies of women damaged by abortion.

You then repeat the lie that we deny scientific research, as if this research is on your side of the argument that abortion is "safe," while even many abortionists admit that it is not.

Even from a purely non-religious viewpoint, abortion does not empower women, but damages them and is and makes them prey to unscrupulous men who murder and maim for profit.

You’ve gone so far down the rabbit hole of existentialism, that you don’t even understand the irrationality of your Kantian and Hegelian thought. In the long run, your position isn’t a philosophical or religious problem at all. It’s a moral one fueled by your own irrational passions.

And moral problems are best dealt with by the LOGOS.

How to put abortion clinic 911 emergency calls on YouTube

I was thinking about writing a short "how-to" entry on how to create videos with abortion clinic 911 calls. I might elaborate more later, but here's a short explanation. People are often shocked to find out that we can easily get recordings of any 911 call. Simply, these are public domain. Anyone can call their local police or law enforcement department and order recordings of 911 calls coming from an abortion clinic. In fact, if you are a Christian witness at an abortion clinic and see anything unusual, you can call 911. Not only can you get the 911 call you made, but also any phone calls between the operators and the dispatch units.

The simple version:

1. Whenever you know of a 911 call coming from an abortion clinic you can get the tape or CD from your city or county.

2. Then you just need to use a simple video editing program to lay out an audio track.

3. Then edit any relevant images, graphics, captions or video over the audio track.

4. Then render it as a 320 X 240 dpi "medium broadband" file of any type. Different editing programs use various "codecs" to encode video, but YouTube can read and use them all.

5. Then you upload to YouTube. All you need to do is to register an account with them and you can upload any video you have in almost any format.

If you still have no idea how to do what I just explained, then I suppose you could always ask someone like me to help.

I know people who have years of video materials chronicling shocking events at abortion clinics. Now is the time to get these out to the general public.

Here are some of the pages with the Baby Rowan video. Since blogs are published with RSS feeds, one blog can appear in many different places. Some blogs are simply just "aggregates" of other blogs that appear with a similar subject matter. So the video is showing up all over the place. You can click on these links and see it without having to log into YouTube for "unsuitable content."

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2007/02/baby_rowan_911.php

http://reflectionsofaparalytic.com/?p=238

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/02/baby_rowan_911__1.html

There are many repeats of the www.prolifeblogs.com feed on Baby Rowan at other blogs. The Baby Rowan video is now past 1100 views in less than one week by individual users. This was despite being restricted to registered users of YouTube who must declare themselves to be of adult age. Here is one blog that complains that it is restricted as "inappropriate" at YouTube:

http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=693

Warning - Powerful examples of cultural bias against human life!

A video exposing the truth behind the modern abortion industry was posted on You Tube on February 7, 2007. You are not able to view the video with out being logged in because it has been tagged as inappropriate. But if you search for “Saving Private Ryan” at You Tube this video is available without restriction (posted in October, 2006.) Hopefully You Tube will review their practices and stop restricting the truth and start actually limiting gratuitous violence.

The video about Baby Rowan can be viewed without restriction at ProLifeBlogs.

I am not upset with Google for putting a warning on the video requiring people to be 18 or older before logging in. I also put a warning at the page to tell people that it is disturbing. I don't think it's a video that young children should watch. Some of my family members aren't going to watch it.

There is still a lot of traffic for the video though. It didn't seem to drop off much when the warning was put up. At this point, I think most of the traffic is coming from the outside pages with the embedded streaming video.

Abortion Clinic 911 Emergency Calls - Baby Rowan

Here is the promised Baby Rowan video. This was difficult to edit on an emotional and spiritual level. Before you view it, you should be prepared because it is both shocking and heart-breaking.

This video illustrates some 911 calls when a baby was born alive in an Orlando abortion clinic and left to die. The abortionist who owns the clinic, Dr. James Pendergraft, has a history of illegal activity. He has done time in prison for an extortion conviction. He has had several of his abortion clinics closed for health violations and he has had his license suspended for performing illegal abortions. Yet this month he is back in business in Orlando.

Although killing a baby born alive after an abortion is a crime, law enforcement has yet to begin an investigation of the death of Baby Rowan. A common method of killing babies born alive is either to drown them in a toilet or to let the harsh effects of premature birth take its eventual toll.

If you don't believe that this is happening in America, consider the following. A British newspaper reports that each year 50 babies are born alive after abortion. Since America is almost five times as large, where are ours?

Abortion Clinic 911 Calls - Baby Rowan

I am currently working on a Baby Rowan video that will probably be in three or four parts. This will be even more sensational and harder to refute than the several videos we did about Aware Woman.

Rowan was a baby born alive in about the fifth month (22 weeks) of pregnancy and left to die at the EPOC abortion clinic in Orlando. The abortionist? None other than convicted felon James Scott Pendergraft. This is more common than people think. In this case, there are police reports, an autopsy, several photos of a perfectly formed baby and several 911 calls to corroborate this woman's story. How can anyone say that this was not homicide? If people see this with their own eyes and still try to refute it, the only thing they can really say is that the murder of a viable infant ought to be legal.

Look for these videos in a few weeks on YouTube. You can be alerted when these videos become available by subscribing to my VLog at YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jcr4runner

In the last few weeks, the traffic for the Aware Woman 911 Emergency Calls (1 of 4) has picked up. This was the first pro-life video I posted on YouTube. It looks like it's at more than 100 views per day now up from 50 just a few weeks ago. These things have a way of snowballing as the word gets out. The total views topped 4,000 today. That's not bad for a two month audience. Let's hope it accelerates and reaches 100,000 this year. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vh1frrx_-w

This is the composite of the 911 calls we knew about when several women at the Aware Woman abortion clinic suffered perforations of their uteruses and severe bleeding and had to be rushed to the hospital. The video hard to refute because it shows the ambulances arriving and leaving. It shows that a lot of abortion doctors, like William Philip Egherman, are either incompetent or in a hurry. (By the way, that's Egherman in the last frame of the video.) Common sense should tell people, pro-life or pro-abortion, that this is a dangerous procedure that harms woman and takes the life of a baby.

I don't discount the total depravity of man, but most people still care about injuring themselves. It didn't have a single negative comment until recently:

"Wow, how dare they invade the privacy of the ambulance drivers, the children, the neighborhood. This just goes to show the vicious nature of these so-called pro-lifers who are simply looking for a way to control others. How does this talk women out of having abortions? Having two or three calls for an ambulance is supposed to deter us? More mothers die from childbirth. Trust me, abortion is very very rarely regretted."

The attitude is, "You can't stop us. We are committed to abortion and none of your reporting and research into its dangers and is going to change that!"

Let's ignore the fact that this was at only one clinic in the space of 18 months. There were several other botched procedures that we know of as well. This is by a doctor who rarely performed more than 20 abortions a week at that clinic.

There is a growing segment of people who have become hardened, but on the whole people are not that heartless. A more typical "pro-choice" response is:

"Powerful piece of footage. Well put together. Have mixed views on Abortion myself, but clearly this clinic needs closing down. One thing they are not is AWARE. Sending my thoughts to all who need."

and

Well just saying someone's life won't be happy isn't reason enough to terminate it. I'm pro choice but for the reason of safety for women who will have one regardless if its legal or not. But I am certainly not pro choice as a way of eliminating poor people. You can't justify abortion as a way of getting rid of undesirable people.

This is the great common-sense moderate middle who we need to influence. See the video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vh1frrx_-w

Abortion Clinic 911 Emergency Calls (4 of 4)

Abortion Clinic 911 Emergency Calls (4 of 4)

For more information: http://forerunner.com/prolife.html

This short series of videos documents the ravaging damage that abortion causes for most women who abort.

In part four of the series, Lydia Baker of Florida Outreach Childbirth Education talks about her work with teenagers and women in crisis pregnancies. Together with Dr. Pat McEwen, she explains the various life threatening complications that can result from an abortion.

Common complications resulting from an abortion include: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock.

Sadly, many women are injured each year and some even die because they have bought the lie. Still the pro-abortion industry will not face the facts. Abortion is legal, but it is not “safe,” and it is certainly not “rare.” They refuse to debate except in shrill paranoid screeds portraying peaceful protesters and sidewalk counselors as people who “want to deny women the right to choose.”

On the contrary, the pro-life movement has done everything humanly possible to help mothers and fathers make the right loving choices for their baby boys and girls.

In recent months, more abortion clinics have been closed than ever before. How amazing it is that the abortion industry suddenly is collapsing in on itself!

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics wrote recently: “It is increasingly obvious ... our resolve is no match for their cowardice…. I want to predict that a time will come when every preacher, every priest, and every politician in America will be pushing and shoving to get to the front lines of the pro-life effort. I can even tell you when that seemingly unlikely event will occur -- on the day it becomes obvious to them that victory over the abortion holocaust is at hand.”

I’ve had these video projects on the back burner since 1998 when non-linear editing became more accessible. But it hasn’t been until now that I have sensed the urgency of the hour.

You can help by posting these videos on your own website. More will become available in early 2007.

Abortion Clinic 911 Emergency Calls (3 of 4)

Abortion Clinic 911 Emergency Calls (3 of 4)

For more information: http://forerunner.com/prolife.html

This short series of videos documents the ravaging damage that abortion causes for most women who abort.

In part 3 of this series, Pat McEwen Ph.D. focuses on some of the local abortion doctors who have performed abortions in Melbourne, Florida and elsewhere.

William Philip Egherman shockingly has left a trail of injured women. He has now been exposed to the public through this video series.

Another abortion doctor, James Scott Pendergraft, went to jail for extortion, had his license to practice medicine suspended, and had his chain of abortion clinics shut down health and legal violations.

Two other local abortionists, Randall Whitney and Patricia Baird-Windle, fought each other in court when one tried to open a clinic that would have competed with the other. It's ironic because for years Aware Woman claimed to want to offer a variety of "health services" in a convenient location. When another doctor wanted to do the same, Pat Windle actually told the pro-life activists where he would be opening his clinic. Some of the abortion clinic volunteers who protested in favor of Pat Windle’s clinic soon dropped their support of Aware Woman when they witnessed this hypocrisy.

So much for wanting to keep abortion “safe, legal and rare”!

Finally, Dr. Pat examines the link between abortion and breast cancer. She answers the propaganda campaign by Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers who falsely claim that there is no evidence to suggest a link between abortion and cancer.

Abortion Clinic 911 Emergency Calls (2 of 4)

Abortion Clinic 911 Emergency Calls (2 of 4)

For more information: http://forerunner.com/prolife.html

This short series of videos documents the ravaging damage that abortion causes for most women who abort.

Whether you are pro-life or “pro-choice,” the simple fact of the matter is that abortion is dangerous. It kills the innocent unborn child and damages the woman physically, emotionally and spiritually.

In part two of this series, we asked Pat McEwen Ph.D. some important and intriguing questions:

“What is pro-life sidewalk counseling?”

“Does abortion really damage most women who abort?”

“What are some documented examples of the danger of abortion?”

“What about the pro-choice slogan -- KEEP ABORTION SAFE AND LEGAL?”

“Is abortion ever safe?”

Dr. Pat concludes with some documented examples of complications that commonly occur during an abortion, which can permanently injure a woman.

The pro-abortionists have shunned debates on this issue constantly because all the scientific, statistical and medical information shows that abortion is never safe.

But you can help by posting these videos on your own website. Using the media resources you have available, you can help to explain that we are trying to get a debate going with pro-abortionists and none will step up to the plate to face us.

Abortion Clinic 911 Emergency Calls

Here's a video that has been on The Forerunner pro-life videos web page since 1999. Just this week I re-edited it from scratch and rendered it as a medium band-width streaming video.

It consists of 8mm video I made when I owned a house across the street from an abortion clinic in Melbourne, Florida. I was able to video-tape several emergency calls when abortion doctor William Egherman injured several women.

See video of the fire engines, police cars and ambulances and listen to the 911 calls responding to Aware Woman five times in a 17 month period. Also hear a heart breaking telephone message left on our answering machine from a sorrowful mother who has come face to face with what abortion really is -- the killing of her baby.

Some might wonder why this man has not been prosecuted and has not lost his medical license. Amazingly, the State of Florida says that "perforation of the uterus is a known and common complication of abortion" and not malpractice.

This video speaks for itself. If you want to read the transcript of the 911 calls, go to the pro-life videos web page. Since posting this on YouTube yesterday, I've had several people tell me that they plan to embed the video on their own web pages. You are invited to do that too. Let's get the word out.

This is already becoming my most viewed YouTube video due to the shocking revelation of how common are abortion related injuries -- a supposedly "safe and legal" procedure.

Abortion is legal, but never safe!

A favorite slogan of pro-choice (read: pro-abortion) advocates is "Keep abortion safe and legal!" Having lived directly across the street from an abortion clinic for seven years, I disagree. Abortion is never safe even though it is now legal. A few years ago, I compiled some video footage of ambulance calls to the Aware Woman abortion clinic. As far as we know, there were at least five 911 calls to rescue/emergency concerning women who were the victims of botched abortions in a period of less than one year.

Over the weekend, I interviewed two pro-life counselors in Melbourne, Florida who have witnessed these emergency cases resulting from botched abortions. It's a lot more common than people think. I am in the process of creating a higher bandwidth version of the abortion clinic 911 calls video. This will be accompanied by interviews with Dr. Pat McEwen and Lydia Baker.

This streaming video was sensational a few years ago when I first compiled it. The video got thousands of downloads. However, with high speed internet access now so common, I want to offer this superior version. Pro-lifers will have access to the code in order to embed the video in their own websites. Look for the video in a few days at our pro-life videos website.

My prayer is that people's eyes will be open to the danger of abortion both on a physical and spiritual level and that abortion endangers the lives of many women, and it goes without saying, millions of unborn children.

Should murder be criminalized?

The greatest failure among the American pro-life movement is the squeamish attitude toward criminalizing abortion. When so-called "pro-life" Christians call for a restriction on some abortions, what they are really saying is that they want the federal government to regulate child killing much in the way that the FDA regulates the selling of meat and vegetables. There would be no penalties beyond the loss of a license and a stiff fine perhaps.

Nicaragua, a country that was recently communist, has passed into law a six-year prison term for performing illegal abortions with stiffer sentences of up to 30 years for women who had abortions and for those who aided them. The Christians in Nicaragua understand that murdering one's own child is a far more unnatural crime than killing for money.

President-elect and former communist president Daniel Ortega, who once favored abortion rights, changed his stance and supported the law after strongly embracing Roman Catholicism and winning over voters in a country with a conservative religious tradition. Nicaragua is about 85 percent Catholic, with many of the remainder belonging to conservative evangelical churches.

MTV pro-life video

Here is the link for the "new and improved" version of the MTV Unfiltered program on pro-life activists Joel and Ariel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8a3m5kEuPw

Look also for the embedded video at our website.

http://forerunner.com/prolife.html

MTV's pro-life video featuring Joel and Ariel

Back in 1995, I owned a house across the street from an abortion clinic in Melbourne, Florida where a lot of pro-life activism was making the news -- sometimes even worldwide. Two Bible college students -- Joel and Ariel -- who were pro-life activists and members of my church had convinced MTV to feature them on their Unfiltered program. This was a series of reality-style shorts about young people with interesting real life stories.

Joel asked me if I would shoot some of the video since I lived across the street from the clinic. At that time, I was thinking that God was about to expand my media ministry into video productions, so I was encouraged by the open door. I was extremely pleased with the program when it came out. MTV was surprisingly unbiased. At the time I thought that Joel and Ariel had a gift for presenting on camera. That was over ten years ago. I still have a low-bandwidth RealPlayer streaming video posted at my pro-life videos site.

Last weekend, we spent several hours taping the stand-up narration for The Real Jesus DVD with Joel and Ariel discussing the segments. Some of it came out great. I plan to begin releasing all ten parts as a YouTube Podcast beginning next week.

One of the warm up exercises they did was to talk about the MTV Unfiltered program and what they think of it now over ten years later. I redid the MTV segment as a medium bandwidth streaming video with Joel and Ariel critiquing it at the end. I will upload the entire video to YouTube tonight. It will also appear at The Forerunner.com website. I'll post the urls here later tonight.

The most dangerous place for a child to be

This will go across the grain of some people, but read to the end to get my real point.

Less than one in a million children are murdered in school. School is by far the safest place to be.

And it is nothing new. USA Today reported: "The worst school attack in U.S. history occurred in 1927, when a farmer angry about school taxes blew up a school in Bath, Mich., killing 45. In 1959, a man trying to enroll his son into a Houston elementary school detonated a suitcase filled with dynamite, killing six. In 1979, a 16-year-old girl who had been given a rifle for Christmas, instead of the radio she asked for, shot from her home into an elementary school across the street in San Diego, killing two adults. Her motive: 'I don't like Mondays.' Those incidents are mostly forgotten now ..."

It seems higher than before because it was previously unheard of in white communities. Since 1997, there has been an upsurge of school violence in rural and suburban communities. Not much media coverage was previously given to murders in urban areas because people expected that.

However, of one hundred homicides of school-aged children, less than one is killed in school. School is by far the safest place to be -- even public schools. Think about it. I am a public school teacher in an urban population district. At the school I teach at, we have over one hundred adults watching the kids at all times. Kids get into trouble when they are by themselves.

With one exception. And this is the most dangerous place to be.

The mother's womb. One in three children are killed by their parents.

Why are we not as outraged by that?

Columbine victim's father responds to Amish shootings

LifeNews.com featured the following item:

*****************

A father of a victim of the Columbine shootings responded to the recent shooting at an Amish school, said abortion has cheapened people's view of life.

CBS News featured Denver resident Brian Rohrbough, whose 15-year-old son Daniel was killed in the Columbine massacre. In his interview, aired nationally on the program, Rohrbough said abortion has caused a dimmer view of the sanctity of human life. "This country is in a moral free fall.

For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum," he explained. "We teach there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. And I assure you, the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion." "Abortion has diminished the value of