Troy Perkins
I posted earlier to PatriotBeliever.com the Colorado Right to Life's Summary of the Ruling Upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban , a detailed analysis as to why this ruling and the ban are not victories at all. This needs to be understood by all Christians because most evangelical leaders don't even understand this and have spread the disinformation far and wide, keeping the American Christian asleep about the real "War on Terror" (abortion - you do realize that abortion is the true "War on Terror" right? Compare the death tolls between American Abortions and American terrorist deaths. The clear winner is Abortion... but that's for another article...)
Wake up American!
Ambassador Alan Keyes on the topic...
The type of wording in the ruling?:
There is much more than that in there, see for yourself. This ruling and the ban do nothing more than REGULATE abortions, despite pro-lifers proclaiming otherwise.
The Colorado Right to Life is all over this but not many others are. Talk show host Bob Enyart is covering it extensively as well as challenging national pro-life leaders like James Dobson on it. Check out their website and get educated and educate others, particularly "pro-life" Christians!
Thursday, May 10, 2007
More Information on Ruling Upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Partial Birth Abortion Ruling is Not a Pro-Life Victory
PBA Ruling is Not a Pro-Life Victory
The Covenant News ~ April 24, 2007
Colorado Right To Life Summary of the Ruling
Upholding the Partial-birth Abortion Ban
Shirley Dobson, on the day of the ruling, agreed with talk show host Hugh Hewitt that the Supreme Court upholding the partial-birth abortion ban, "is an answer to prayer." The tragedy, which she was unaware of, but which Hewitt as a lawyer should have known, is that not a single abortion, late-term or otherwise, has been or will be, canceled due to this ban. And THE BAN ITSELF NEVER HAD EVEN THE POSSIBILITY OF PREVENTING A SINGLE ABORTION.
Fifteen years of focused effort went toward achieving this ban, and tens of millions of dollars have been raised to continue that long fight, and during those years U.S. abortionists have killed 20,000,000 children. And now that we have our PBA ban in place, law enforcement cannot use it to protect the life of even a single pre-born child.
The justices of the 5-to-4 majority, all of whom were appointed by Ronald Reagan, George Bush, or George W. Bush, namely, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, rendered a ruling that has no moral component whatsoever and is merely regulatory. On page 30 at Section IV (A), these men optimistically suggest that, "The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand."
Our Christian leaders have mislead millions into thinking this ban would prevent at least some abortions. In reality, pro-lifers volunteered, they made phone calls, and gave money, all to promote a ban that utterly lacked the authority to save even a single baby. Sadly, our leaders are not wiser than that. Rank-and-file pro-lifers were never told that this ban had no ability to actually save a child, and instead was a public relations event "to keep the issue in the news." But the children deserved better.
Almost all our leaders, from the protestant Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, to the Roman Catholic president of National Right to Life Wanda Franz, led Christians to believe that the PBA ban would reduce late term abortions. Two less-known syndicated Christian radio hosts, unnamed, were saying exactly that while celebrating this ruling until they took a call from Colorado Right To Life board member Lolita Hanks, RN, MS, who informed them that late-term abortionists will continue unabated under this ruling because the ban only prohibits a particular technique, and does NOT prohibit the murder of even a single child.
Even the justices themselves wrote, on page 26 at Section IV, that, "The question is whether the Act... imposes a substantial obstacle to late-term... abortions. The Act does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle..." The following analysis documents the ruling's repeated and aggressive affirmation of the right to kill unborn children, whether inside or significantly outside the womb, including by pulling the arms and legs of babies out of the birth canal and ripping them off. Many pro-lifers now celebrating would probably shed tears if they actually read the ruling itself.
The opinion, quoted extensively below, is repeatedly vulgar in its affirmation of the brutal tearing apart of living unborn children. Section III (C) (1) for example, regarding the late-term abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation, which this ruling repeatedly upholds as remaining legal, states that "D&E will often involve a physician pulling a 'substantial portion' of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg, into the vagina prior to the death of the fetus." Then for the purpose of this current opinion, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito ruled that, "the removal of a small portion [such as 'of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg,' first pulled outside of the mother, as far as up to the navel] of the fetus is not prohibited." (See documentation below).
Gonzales v. Carhart, April 18, 2007 (Upholding Congress' 2003 PBA Ban)
Verbatim quotes from the ruling follow, with all our comments appearing [in brackets]. Bold and underlined emphasis can bring the reader quickly to the key factual, and the most egregious, portions of the decision. (The entire ruling is here at SupremeCourtUS.gov - PDF)
JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
[John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito joined.]
p.3, I (A)
Between 85 and 90 percent of the approximately 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States take place in the first three months of pregnancy, which is to say in the first trimester. The most common first-trimester abortion method is vacuum aspiration (otherwise known as suction curettage) in which the physician vacuums out the embryonic tissue.
pp. 3-4, I (A)
Of the remaining abortions that take place each year, most occur in the second trimester. The surgical procedure referred to as "dilation and evacuation" or "D&E" is the usual abortion method in this trimester.
p. 4, I (A)
[The ruling will build upon this description of a procedure that remains legal as of this opinion.]
Some [doctors] may keep dilators in the cervix for two days, while others use dilators for a day or less… The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed.
p. 5, I (A)
Some doctors, especially later in the second trimester, may kill the fetus a day or two before performing the surgical evacuation. They inject digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus, the umbilical cord, or the amniotic fluid. Fetal demise may cause contractions and make greater dilation possible. Once dead, moreover, the fetus' body will soften, and its removal will be easier. Other doctors refrain from injecting chemical agents, believing it adds risk with little or no medical benefit.
p. 6, I (A)
For discussion purposes this D&E variation will be referred to as intact D&E. The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes. There are no comprehensive statistics indicating what percentage of all D&Es are performed in this manner.
p. 6, I (A)
…the doctor extracts the fetus in a way conducive to pulling out its entire body, instead of ripping it apart. One doctor, for example, testified:
"If I know I have good dilation and I reach in and the fetus starts to come out and I think I can accomplish it, the abortion with an intact delivery, then I use my forceps a little bit differently. I don't close them quite so much, and I just gently draw the tissue out attempting to have an intact delivery, if possible."
Rotating the fetus as it is being pulled decreases the odds of dismemberment.
pp. 6-7, I (A)
A doctor also "may use forceps to grasp a fetal part, pull it down, and re-grasp the fetus at a higher level—sometimes using both his hand and a forceps—to exert traction to retrieve the fetus intact until the head is lodged in the [cervix]."
p. 7, I (A)
Intact D&E gained public notoriety when, in 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell gave a presentation describing his method of performing the operation. …
"At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and 'hooks' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of bluntcurved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. [T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient."
p. 7-8, I (A)
Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26½-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
p. 8, I, A
"Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used."
p. 8, I (A)
Dr. Haskell's approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and "the process has evolved" since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965.
p. 8, I (A)
Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced "so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through." … Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus' skull. … Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it.
p. 9, I (A)
Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because "the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion," not a birth. … The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would "hold the fetus' head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull" and kill the fetus before it is born. … Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus' skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has "some viability to it, some movement of limbs," according to this doctor, "[is] always a difficult situation."
[Thus PBA, which was one of the quickest ways to kill the baby, was also the most difficult to witness for staff, the pro-life community, and the general public. Other late-term techniques that remain legal are typically more painful for the child and impose longer suffering, but are less visibly obvious as the murder of a living child. This ban has no authority to save a single child's life, but what it does unwittingly is to push the crime of late-term abortion back into the darkness of the womb, where it lurks out of the public consciousness.]
p. 9, I (A)
Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions.
p. 10, I (B)
Congress found, among other things, that "[a] moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion … is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited." Second, and more relevant here, the Act's language differs from that of the Nebraska statute struck down in Stenberg.
p. 11, I (B)
[Quoting Congress' 2003 PBA Act]
This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother…
[A doctor trying to save the mother's life never has to stop to first intentionally kill the baby. The PBA ban from its inception never had even the possibility of preventing a single abortion, and yet even at that, it contains horrendous and destructive particulars and precedents.]
pp. 15-16, II
[Any legal process, ruling, or law that violates Do not murder is inherently lawless and should be opposed. Meanwhile, this Section II excerpt implies that at least one justice in the future may rule against abortion itself (at least late-term), but is overruling and violating for now the ultimate legal principal Do not murder.]
We assume the following principles for the purposes of this opinion. Before viability, a State "may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy." … It also may not impose upon this right an undue burden which exists if a regulation's "purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." … On the other hand, "[r]egulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose." ... Casey, in short, struck a balance…. We now apply its standard to the cases at bar.
p. 16, III
[Implies the AG could expand his opposition to abortion in another case.]
In this litigation the Attorney General does not dispute that the Act would impose an undue burden if it covered standard D&E.
p. 17 III (A)
…the Act's definition of partial-birth abortion requires the fetus to be delivered "until… in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."
[This could produce gruesome new abortion techniques, such as delivery to the naval, then killing the baby by stabbing him from belly to heart, or cutting off his legs for him to bleed to death, prior to final "extraction."]
p. 17 III (A)
For purposes of criminal liability, the overt act causing the fetus' death must be separate from delivery. And the overt act must occur after the delivery to an anatomical landmark.
[The PBA Ban Act and this ruling permit the abortionist to remove the baby up to the navel, and then kill him.]
p. 18 III (A)
If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point by accident or inadvertence, the Act is inapplicable. …no crime has occurred.
[The abortionist can still perform a text-book PBA if he was attempting to remove the baby only to the navel, but it unintentionally slipped out farther, as Planned Parenthood testimony claims occurs occasionally when dilation is greater than expected. Of course an abortionist would have few witnesses to this, and could claim any intent, and possibly continue to perform PBAs as desired. As a bad law goes, this PBA ban never had even the possibility of preventing a single abortion, and further, it's not even a very effective prohibition of the procedure itself.]
p. 20, III (C)
We next determine whether the Act imposes an undue burden, as a facial matter, because its restrictions on second-trimester abortions are too broad... The Act prohibits intact D&E… it does not prohibit the D&E procedure in which the fetus is removed in parts.
p. 20, III (C) (1)
The Act's intent requirements, however, limit its reach to those physicians who carry out the intact D&E after intending to undertake both steps at the outset.
p. 20, III, (C), (1)
The Act excludes most D&Es in which the fetus is removed in pieces, not intact.
[Late-term abortion remains legal. Throughout the 15 years that millions of Christian pro-lifers supported this effort, many, if not most, were led to believe that this PBA ban was going to outlaw all late-term abortions. The responsibility for that flow of misinformation and the wasted years, money, and blood, lies squarely with our local and national pro-life ministries, our "conservative" media personalities, and our Christian and pro-life leaders.]
p. 21, III (C) (1)
The statute in Stenberg prohibited "'deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof…" … Congress, it is apparent, responded to these concerns because the Act departs in material ways from the statute in Stenberg. It adopts the phrase "delivers a living fetus," …instead of "'delivering… a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof…"
[The court identified changes in the PBA bans that help it meet with their approval, and they first list the change of "child" to "fetus." This ruling has no positive moral component, but is merely regulatory.]
p. 21, III (C) (1)
[concurring with their Stenberg ruling from 2000:]
"D&E will often involve a physician pulling a 'substantial portion' of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg, into the vagina prior to the death of the fetus."
p. 22, III (C) (1)
…the removal of a small portion [such as "say, an arm or leg"] of the fetus is not prohibited.
p. 23, III (C) (1)
The fatal overt act must occur after delivery to an anatomical landmark [the navel]…
[As long as the abortionist delivers the baby only to his navel, killing him at that point remains absolutely legal, and according to the justices, it is that very fact that leads them to uphold this PBA ban.]
p. 24, III (C) (2)
…respondents say… doctors cannot predict the amount the cervix will dilate before the abortion procedure. It might dilate to a degree that the fetus will be removed largely intact. To complete the abortion, doctors will commit an overt act that kills the partially delivered fetus. Respondents thus posit that any D&E has the potential to violate the Act… Brief for Respondent Planned Parenthood… This reasoning, however, does not take account of the Act's intent requirements, which preclude liability from attaching to an accidental intact D&E.
["Accidental" partial-birth abortions remain legal, and the great majority of such "accidents" would likely never even be reported to authorities by the abortion clinic staff or the mother.]
["Accidental" partial-birth abortions remain legal, and the great majority of such "accidents" would likely never even be reported to authorities by the abortion clinic staff or the mother.]
p. 26, III (C) (2)
[Now that the court has upheld the PBA Ban Act, the law will simply be]
Respondents have not shown that requiring doctors to intend dismemberment before delivery to an anatomical landmark [past the navel] will prohibit the vast majority of D&E abortions. [Therefore, exactly because late-term abortion remains legal with this ruling, the justices reasoned:] The Act, then, cannot be held invalid…
p. 26, IV
Under the principles accepted as controlling here [principles which violate, Do not murder], the Act, as we have interpreted it, would be unconstitutional "if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability."
p. 26, IV
The question is whether the Act, measured by its text in this facial attack, imposes a substantial obstacle to late-term, but previability, abortions. The Act does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle…
p. 27, IV (A)
Under our precedents it is clear the State has a significant role to play in regulating the medical profession.
[This majority upheld this ruling because it is merely "regulating" a technique. As to the actual issue of the personhood of the child, and the murder of the innocent, consider what Justice Antonin Scalia said on Feb. 4, 2002 at a Pew Forum on Religion, Politics, and the Death Penalty.
"[T]he only one of my religious views that has anything to do with my job as a judge is the seventh commandment – thou shalt not lie. … I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade. … One [side] wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they're both wrong..."All Christians should grieve at this. That is not pro-life, it is pro-choice, by process. Scalia, a hero of the pro-life community, hereby grotesquely rejects God's enduring command, Do Not Murder, as the most fundamental of all legal principles. What is the good of not lying, if you then honestly rule to kill the innocent? Our pro-life and Christian leaders have turned the wicked humanist values of moral relativism and legal positivism into the greatest obligation of government. And many conservative judges, who grew up with an inclination toward Judeo-Christian morality and absolutes, could have developed into heroes of life, but instead, they utterly destroy the ultimate legal defense of the unborn, which is not based upon following an arbitrary, man-made, legal process, but only upon personhood and the God-given right to life.]
p. 29, IV (A)
…some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the means that will be used, confining themselves to the required statement of risks the procedure entails. From one standpoint this ought not to be surprising. Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety preceding invasive medical procedures become the more intense. This is likely the case with the abortion procedures here in issue.
[Kennedy, affirmed by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, thus trivializes the grotesque particulars of ripping apart a living baby by comparing it to getting queasy by talk of incisions and blood."]
p. 30, IV (A)
The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand.
[This Gonzales v. Carhart opinion is NOT a pro-life victory. To claim so is ignorance or worse. And Colorado Right To Life is committed to dispelling any such ignorance from the movement. There will be opposing camps, but neither side will be able to claim ignorance to the radically pro-abortion findings of this PBA ruling, nor to the utter inability of the PBA ban to protect a single unborn child.
Regulating murder is always wrong, and we find it here to be foolhardy also, and the error of regulating murder is not only evident in the ill-conceived PBA ban, but in every example of compromised incrementalism where "pro-life" laws further erode the personhood of the child by concluding with the meaning, "and then you can kill the baby."
The "conservative" Supreme Court justices are NOT "moving toward life" as our leaders claim. Rather, the pro-life campaign around the ban, and now around its ruling, is instead a public relations ploy to convince pro-lifers that our ministry leaders are effective and worthy to receive continued donations and support. These justices actually make their own public relations suggestion, that the abortionists might find a less shocking method to kill older children. Congratulations to the ACLJ and Jay Sekulow.]
p. 30, IV (A)
It is objected that the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than the intact D&E…
[After making this observation, the justices do not even attempt to rebut this objection. Their only comment has to do, not with the brutality against the child, but with "the public's perception." Of course, PBA was less "brutal" (it was far quicker and more painless) than the more common, painful, prolonged, and now legally preferred, techniques to kill older kids. Perhaps our Christian leaders will now launch a new 15-year campaign to outlaw some other method, and while they unwittingly continue to undermine the personhood of the child, we will spill the blood of another 20,000,000 kids, after which we pro-lifers can all celebrate another great victory.]
p. 30-37, IV (B) [This section regards PBA and the "health of the mother."]
p. 33, IV (B)
Physicians are not entitled to ignore regulations that direct them to use reasonable alternative procedures.
[Typical of the extreme hubris of humanism, even the "conservative" justices feel safe ignoring God's enduring command, Do not murder, but no abortionist should dare ignore their regulation on how to kill a child. This is the fruit of a quarter-century of Christian legal-positivism on "our own" judges. Thus these "pro-life" judges refer to "the removal of a small portion [such as "say, an arm or leg"] of the fetus" as a "reasonable alternative" procedure.]
p. 33, IV (B)
In Casey the controlling opinion held an informed-consent requirement in the abortion context was "no different from a requirement that a doctor give certain specific information about any medical procedure."
[Fifteen years after pro-lifers celebrated our misguided "Casey" effort, the "conservative" justices, conditioned by our own pro-life efforts, are more entrenched than ever in viewing abortion as a regulatory matter and having NOTHING to do with personhood or a God-given right to life.]
p. 34, IV (B) [partly quoting the National Abortion Federation as though it were legitimate:]
"[e]xperts testifying for both sides" agreed D&E was safe.
["Pro-life" justices call D&E safe? It has a greater than fifty percent fatality rate.]
"[e]xperts testifying for both sides" agreed D&E was safe.
p. 34-35, IV (B)
If the intact D&E procedure [PBA] is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure.
[Some pro-lifers who actually read this ruling weep upon realizing they squandered the blood of children killed by partial-birth abortion on a sham victory. Consistent with past behavior, it is likely that many pro-life leaders will not read this ruling either, making it easier for them to celebrate what is actually evil.]
p. 35, IV (B)
…the Act… does not construct a substantial obstacle to the abortion right.
[Gonzales v. Carhart also here calls abortion rights "constitutional rights," and throughout the ruling reaffirms the "right" to kill an unborn child, further entrenching child killing in legal precedent, and even in the precedent of "conservative" judges, who have a far greater commitment to their own wicked rulings than to God's enduring command, Do not murder. Thus, every time pro-lifers give "our own" justices an opportunity to regulate child-killing, by the force of judicial arrogance, we push those justices even farther from ever outlawing abortion based upon personhood and the God-give right to life.
p. 36, IV (B)
…legitimate abortion regulations [fall] under the Commerce Clause…
[In reality, to the extent the U.S. Constitution is just, it's preamble guarantees its protections to "our posterity," and Amendment V requires that "No person shall be… deprived of life... without due process of law," meaning the government cannot authorize an innocent person to be maimed or killed. Killing innocent children only involves the Commerce Clause for those devoid of moral conscience. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Antonin Scalia, in his brief "concurring" opinion, mentioned that the between abortion regulation and the Commerce Clause was "outside the question presented" to the court in this case.]
p. 37-38, V
[This Section addressed the "life of the mother" exception to the PBA ban.]
…the proper means to consider exceptions [to the ban] is by as-applied challenge. The Government has acknowledged that preenforcement, as-applied challenges to the Act [are] the proper manner to protect the health of the woman if it can be shown that in discrete and well-defined instances a particular condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used… The Act is open to a proper as-applied challenge in a discrete case.
p. 38, V
No as-applied challenge need be brought if the prohibition in the Act threatens a woman's life because the Act already contains a life exception.
[Of course, if a mother's life were truly at risk, the doctor would never need to further complicate matters by delaying delivery of the baby long enough to first kill it. Further, doctors often perform a Caesarian section in an emergency, and that of course requires no intermediate step to intentionally kill the baby.]
-End of Excerpts-
We conclude this summary with an example of how pro-life ministries are already misrepresenting Gonzales v. Carhart. Nikolas Nikas, president of the pro-life Bioethics Defense Fund, praised this ruling with a celebratory press release which opened with this quote from the decision:
"The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman." - Justice Kennedy, majority opinion, Gonzales v. Carhart issued 4/18/2007
The Bioethics Defense Fund misleads pro-lifers even with this quote, which is NOT a new finding. (It appears in the ruling at p. 27, Section IV (A).). The justices regurgitate this from the 1992 Casey decision, and since that decision celebrated by pro-lifers as a victory 15 years ago, U.S. abortionists have killed 20,000,000 children. The current decision is purely regulatory, and further destroys personhood and the child's right to life.
Leaders and Ministries Celebrating the Ruling
National Right to Life: "applauds… ruling"
Americans United for Life: "praises ruling"
Priests for Life: "we are grateful"
Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America: "Court votes to protect babies from painful abortion"
Toney Perkins, Family Research Council: "we applaud the U.S. Supreme Court's decision today"
Paul Schenck of D.C.'s National Pro-Life Action Center: "the Court… has begun to right a terrible wrong"
Troy Newman of Operation Rescue: "celebrates the… ruling… and hails the victory"
The Christian Coalition: "commends the five justices"
Andrea Lafferty, Director, Traditional Values Coalition: "Unborn babies have won the right not to be slaughtered"
Rob Schenck, National Clergy Council: "the beginning of the end for Roe v. Wade."
American Family Association Gregory Rummo article: "reason has prevailed"
Liberty Counsel: "shot of adrenaline to the pro-life movement"
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: "welcomes [the] decision"
Alliance Defense Fund: "a ruling for common sense and the rule of law"
Beverly LaHaye, founder CWA: "justice was served"
D. James Kennedy's Center for Reclaiming America: "good news for unborn children… enormously good news"
Jay Sekulow of American Center for Law & Justice: "happy to report… a significant victory"
Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family: "We thank God for this victory that affirms the value of human life"
Leaders and Ministries Condemning the Ruling
Ambassador Alan Keyes
American Life League and president Judie Brown
Editor Jim Rudd of CovenantNews.com
Operation Save America / Operation Rescue and director Flip Benham
John Archibald, founding board member, National Right to Life, Americans United for Life
Dr. Charles Rice, Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Notre Dame
Editor John Lofton of The American View
Calvary Chapel South Denver pastor Gino Geraci
Ken & Jo Scott of ProLife Colorado
Crossroad Baptist Church pastor Chuck Baldwin
TheologyOnline.com (Google 8 of 30,100,000 for: theology)
Missionaries to the Preborn and founder Matt Trewhella
Colorado Right To Life and president Brian Rohrbough
(Other ministries wishing to be added to the list condemning the ruling, please email your contact information.)
The partial birth abortion ban has no authority to save even a single child but instead it pushes the killing of late-term babies back into the darkness and out of public view. Thus we have squandered the blood of every child killed by partial-birth abortion using their deaths, not to push for a law that will save any children, but for publicity. And we have helped the abortion industry present itself as more humane by robbing ourselves of the most powerful visual weapon we would ever have to convince people of the wickedness of abortion, namely, the blood of the children being killed out in the open for all to see.
Christ has saved us, those of us who trust in Him. But He has not yet redeemed our flesh, which draws all of us toward sin, until we go to be with the Lord. Rank-and-file pro-lifers must raise their voices to insist that our leaders stop misleading us about pro-life strategy. The children deserve better.
Pastor Bob Enyart
Bob Enyart Live
Denver Bible Church
(For Colorado Right to Life)
Please sign the CRTL pledge
titled 40 Years/50 Million Dead/One Commitment.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
BBC Reported That WTC 7 Collapsed Before it Occurred, Caught on Video? Anyone Care to Explain ?
Troy Perkins
posted at www.patriotbeliever.com
Read more below...
screenshots from www.prisonplanet.com
To be clear, the official story about the collapse of WTC 7 (a huge 47 story building that most people are not even aware collapsed that day) is that it collapsed due to debris damage from the tower collapses and fires, having not been struck by an aircraft. This was already an unbelievable story that is seldom discussed. A media blackout on showing actual collapse footage of building 7 is implied due to interviews like the one between Tucker Carlson and Physics Professor Steven Jones on MSNBC in which the professor asks for the clip of the collapse he supplied to be played several times, to no avail.
This new video of BBC's "pre-report" raises serious questions about scripting of the reporting and foreknowledge of the impending collapse and therefore brings all aspects of the story of that day into question.
WTC 7 has been the center of a lot of attention for 9-11 researchers as it was not hit by a plane like the towers yet collapsed in 7 seconds into a neat pile in perfect controlled demolition style. This building housed offices for the city and just about every federal agency you can think of including the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, ATF, IRS, and FCC among others and housed the Mayor's "emergency command center", a hardened bunker like space designed to withstand many types of disasters. When that building fell, case files for major corporate and criminal investigations were also said to have been destroyed, like evidence in the Enron case for example. This is the same building that the owner, Larry Silverstein discussed in a 2002 PBS documentary when he said he decided to "pull it" and then he watched the build come down. Controlled demolitions typically take at least weeks to plan and prepare properly. Based on video of the collapse of WTC 7 many have stated it was a text book controlled demolition causing little to no additional damage to surrounding structures just a few feet away from where the debris pile landed, especially for a 47 story steel structure.
There are emergency worker statements from the scene that there were warnings to get back, including a 20 second radio countdown just before it came down. Some also have stated "low level flashes" being seen and hearing explosions and pops preceding the collapse. 1300F degree Molten metal existed in the basement area of building 7 like the towers, for some time after the collapses. Yet the official story remains that the building collapse was accidental, and unexplainable.
A brand new, bright and shiny, 52 story WTC 7 building stands today as the first new skyscraper to be rebuilt on the World Trade Center site since 9-11-01 while the families of WTC victims still await the constructing of the promised memorial to those who perished there. We need to remember this is the burial ground for a couple thousand American people.
So ask yourself, what are the implications that the BBC reported that WTC 7 had already collapsed about 20 minutes earlier than it actually did? Then ask yourself why the 9-11 Commission report failed to even mention the collapse or that building at all, not a single word? This all highlights the fact that there has yet to be a true investigation into the attacks of 9-11-01, and most people have accepted this.
If you have read this far you may as well listen to some phone calls made by this Canadian yesterday to the BBC about this new video footage. (phone calls to the BBC.)
I'll be waiting to hear any explanation anyone cares to give.
***UPDATE***
An, uh, explanation has been posted by BBC editor Richard Porter at the BBC blog site.
Read the comments, they are catching some serious flack for the feeble attempt at explaining this away with everything from "we lost the 9-11 tape" to "we were just reporting what we were hearing" (paraphrasing him.)
Now as much flaming that he's getting, I can tell you that they are not showing all comments because at least as of today, my comment that I posted last night is still not there.
This is interesting...
***UPDATE***
Another update,
There is now confirmation with a timestamp of the pre-collapse time this report took place, as reported on PrisonPlanet.com here.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Now is the Time – Don’t Be Fooled in 2008
Now is the Time – Don’t Be Fooled in 2008
Giuliani vs. Paul
By Troy Perkins
I want to state this loud and clear before too many Christians and conservatives fall under the spell being broadcast across the country already about possible 2008 GOP presidential candidates. Already, major “conservative” talk show hosts have begun the process of glossing over Rudy Giuliani’s pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and anti-gun views in an attempt to justify him as the best choice for the Republican presidential candidacy in 2008, because he might be “the most electable”. What a ridiculous idea. At best he might be a political chameleon. If this does not prove a larger agenda is afoot to you, then you might want to ask yourself what you really know about the leaders you help elect. When you consider the views mentioned above alone, Giuliani looks more like Hillary Clinton than he does a conservative Republican. Let me repeat for those calling yourselves “conservative” Christians out there: In America, WE THE PEOPLE are responsible for those we elect and the actions or inactions they take.
While Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly and other supposed “conservative” talking heads (whom many Christian conservatives nearly regard as prophets nowadays) already are beginning to slobber all over Rudi as a possibility (despite his views), none of them as of yet even acknowledge that Ron Paul is even running and is the ideal conservative candidate from a Christian conservative perspective. Yet somehow a John McCain or a Mitt Romney is a contender too?Representative Ron Paul of Texas is quite possibly the single most qualified truly conservative candidate to have started an exploratory committee this year. I challenge anyone to find a more conservative, credible candidate than Ron Paul (Hint: you’d have to look back a couple hundred years in our country’s history for starters). To learn more about his record and stances go to www.ronpaul.org for a good list of starting links. If you look into him, you cannot deny that for a Christian, he is the only choice.
Evidently what it takes to be a good conservative presidential candidate today is to have run a strictly policed city where personal fire arms are banned and to “help the economy” while being tolerant toward untraditional (=immoral) viewpoints. That’s what Giuliani accomplished as mayor of New York City in general. Oh, I almost forgot, and he happened to be mayor when New York was attacked on September 11, 2001. I mean not to criticize Mr. Giuliani or any legitimate deed he may have ever accomplished except to emphasize that he is not conservative.
Please do not let the “lesser of two evils” lie dictate your thinking through another election. That way of thinking has eroded what little political influence Christian conservatives may have had to almost nothing. It is early enough now for believers to actually break out and make a difference as a group of people in our elective process. But we have to be concerned, educated and involved. Begin to educate yourself about who Ron Paul is and what he believes and then start talking about him with others you know. You consider yourself a conservative, now prove it.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Truth in a Culture of Fear and Hate. - The Manipulation of America’s Truth Bearers
Truth in a Culture of Fear and Hate.
The Manipulation of America’s Truth Bearers
By Troy Perkins
Problem, Reaction, Solution - A Familiar Story.
It’s no secret that I’m a Star Wars fan. In the movie, Star Wars Episode III, Revenge of the Sith, the Galactic Republic is crumbling in the midst of an epic war with the Confederacy of Independent Systems under the leadership of a Sith Lord named Count Dooku, a confederacy ultimately controlled by the deceptive (and secret Sith lord himself) Chancellor Palpatine of the Republic. (Those that are not familiar with it, indulge me and those that are fans, bear with me as I explain for others.)
Palpatine had positioned himself as the Chancellor over the entire Galactic Senate through a series of manufactured crises and manipulations using his political influence and had gained emergency powers to fight the very “enemy” that he had stirred up, trained and united against his Republic. It is a classic example of a form of manipulation known in the real world as “problem-reaction-solution”.
In the saga, the systems allied against and attempting to topple the “democratic” Republic, although undesirable, hateful and dangerous cultures and people, did not have the power to be a true threat without the concerted leadership and assistance of the truly evil and secretive Palpatine.
The entire tale revolves around one gifted Anakin Skywalker who is striving to become everything his talents and destiny indicate he is, the most powerful Jedi warrior to have ever been born. The Jedi were a “religious” and respected group of powerful individuals that for ages had used their power and enlightenment to defend all that was good in the galaxy from evil and upheld the Galactic Republic. Anakin struggles from the very start between using his abilities for personal gain and doing what he knows is right as a Jedi.In the third episode of the (six total) films, Anakin finds himself with his master Obi-Wan Kenobi fighting their way in to rescue Chancellor Palpatine from the, albeit controlled “enemy”, enemy nonetheless. Neither Jedi are able to perceive what has really been going on as they have been fully engulfed fighting their enemy for some time. Fighting for what they believe to be the truth. A true “fog of war” exists throughout the created conflict.
In this pivotal scene, the team of Jedi rescuers find themselves face to face with the enemy leader and very powerful Jedi turned evil, Count Dooku, and a fight commences with the bound Chancellor himself looking on, pretending to be happy about his rescue.
Dooku fully believes in his cause against the Republic, the Jedi fully believe in theirs to defend it all while the Chancellor watches his plan unfold perfectly, right before his him, pitting one side against the other. After the count renders the more experienced Obi-Wan unconscious, the powerfully ambitious Anakin beats him down and finally disarms Dooku, driving him to his knees. In a previous episode, Dooku had beaten Anakin down and cut off his hand.
Finally, at the coaxing of the Chancellor, Anakin gains revenge and beheads Count Dooku, in an act not becoming of a Jedi. This act is one of several throughout Anakin’s tale that progressively turns him to the very evil he thought he was fighting through bad or selfish decisions with seemingly good intentions. Before it is all over, he will become worse than what he started out standing against.
Parallels have often been drawn before between this tale that George Lucas wrote into his film saga and true history and even current world events. Lucas has even admitted history’s influence on his scripts. But I would like to point to a little more specific parallel that is not so apparent to us, particularly from a Christian point of view. I would like for you to consider that maybe the Church today is in that scene fighting with a Count Dooku, saber blow for saber blow, just like Anakin was. And like the fictional account, we are headed towards the point when we will have our saber and the enemy’s in our hands with him knelt before us in defeat or possibly the opposite. And like Skywalker, we might have the opportunity to behead him out of revenge instead of justice. But wait a minute, don’t get ahead of me. What about the entire back story involved? Does it apply to our real life situation as well? I propose that not only is it possible that this is the case, but there is great historic precedent that it is.
History’s Boogiemen
Some of them are real, some are not real, some are outright hoaxes and some are real but not nearly as threatening as we have been led to believe. I’m speaking of history’s boogiemen. Most are of the latter variety, real threats but ones that would not be nearly as significant without some help or allowances.
Boogiemen, every good agenda needs one. For Nero burning Rome, it was Christians. For Adolph Hitler, it was Polish border terrorists or a Communist radical that set fire to the Reichstag Building. For President Lyndon Johnson it was North Vietnamese gunboats in the Gulf of Tonkin, the ultimate excuse for the United States’ war in Vietnam. The list is long but the effect is consistent and proven.
So what about America’s current boogieman? It used to actually have a face if you can remember. Osama bin Laden, remember him? You hear the name occasionally now but his mention pales in comparison to his brothers in “faith”. Now the boogieman has been converted into the much broader group of radical Islamic extremists and the trend seems to be becoming all inclusiveness for all of Islam. Am I going to try and tell you that these are not real boogiemen? No, because there does exist in the world real, radical Islamic extremists that do in fact want all “unbelievers” to die. That is a fact. They are a Count Dooku of our very real world and our very real conflict now. They have an ideology of hate for those who would not convert that permeates their existence. But is that all the threat there is?
Terrorism and Tyranny.
Just like Count Dooku and his separatist armies, radical Islam is a real threat. Terrorists do exist and always have. Is the ideology any different now than in the past? Not since the seventeenth century really and probably before that in some form. The goals, however, have changed drastically. By the early 1900’s, Islamism really became a force to overthrow their own governments and return them to the “glory years” of old when their religion and state were one, under the rule of Allah, fundamental rule by force.
Our particular boogieman, although minimized more and more in light of a broader anti-Islam message, is now Al-Qaeda, the world network of radical Islamism. It is no secret any longer that Al-Qaeda arose from the CIA-sponsored Afghan Jihad against the Soviet occupation there where the United States actually aided the enemy of our “enemy”. All indications are that Al-Qaeda operatives have been “handled”, provocateur-ed, and otherwise used by Western government agencies ever since. There is much evidence for this; one just needs to do some research because it’s not talked about in the cable news programs or radio talk shows.
Everything from an agency supervisor “passing” on an opportunity to switch the real 1993 WTC bomb ingredients with fake substances (on tape by the way) to outright FBI higher-up’s orders to stop investigations into Al-Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001 to hijackers living and training at US military installations or living next to agents; the facts are out there that doors are intentionally left opened and individuals are protected along the way. And those are just recent examples. It sounds a lot like Count Dooku in the story mentioned earlier.
The Republic and Believers
So where does that put us? Well, America would be the “Republic” in our story fighting the Dookus of the world. But who is our Anakin Skywalker, the powerful spiritual defender of truth and democracy? I contend our Anakin could be the Church and in particular the “Western” body of Christ.
So what of the other half of the story? The tyrant in the background, manipulating and twisting all parties with their smaller agenda (good or bad) against one another toward his one grand scheme. Oh make no mistake; he’s there today in the real world as well. There is an undeniable hand at work to deceive, distort, kill and destroy down through history. And guess what? This is scriptural. It should be no surprise to a believer that crafty evil is at work in our world through living breathing humans, yet we Christians act as though this is limited somehow to our personal lives with a devil that we cannot see or our only mortal enemies live overseas and only come here to blow things up because our society was so open and unprotected. He also has horns and a pitchfork.
Oh no, he’s real and at work through leaders and events, governments and people, conflicts and agendas. It’s not any one man, politician or radical group of people. Think about it for a minute, this world is all that is left for the one we Christians call Lucifer. Satan’s future is set according to the Bible I read. This is his end game, to take as many to hell with him as he can. Not to get sidetracked theologically, but none of this, of course takes God by surprise, but that’s for another discussion. The Word is also clear that there will be great deception in this world before it is all over and boy is that proving to be the case more than ever now.
The Weapons of this Warfare
So how do we deal with Islam and terrorists? We have already passed into law the most draconian legislation in our nation’s history supposedly to make us safer here. But safe against what? Are we any safer? No. If some crazy fanatic wants to blow themselves up, they are still going to find a way to do it despite every restriction on liberty government can muster. The war in Iraq proves that full military force cannot defend the innocent all the time, in fact it can make things worse. Do we have a missile defense system yet? No! Do we have closed borders to truly control who and what crosses them yet (something that should have been started September 12th, 2001 if the threat was what has been stated.)? No! So what is the “War on Terror” doing besides restricting liberties at home? Killing all those bad guys over there so they won’t come here? That sounds conspicuously like a war without an end to me.
The tendency is the same as Anakin Skywalker’s in the Star Wars story. We want vindication, revenge and to protect and save what we love, at any cost. In that story, Anakin actually becomes the very thing he vowed to fight, with the same desire. And we are poised to end up the same today as the “war on terror” marches on. Supposedly this equals security and safety somehow. A majority of the stories on the News and on talk radio now are a push to focus on Muslims worldwide as the problem and more importantly to continually give up liberties for safety here at home. But if we are to believe the Bible, Muslims are to be dealt with like anyone. Share the truth of the gospel with them. That is not to say that radical Islam can be reasoned with. As an ideology it most definitely can not. But to focus on the Muslim’s religion as the sole boogieman in our crosshairs today is to miss the larger problem and to fall for the trap laid before us by the great deceiver. Remember, most Muslims are individuals needing the love and saving grace of Jesus just as much as anyone.
Where is it Going? Freedom.
So how do we deal with the not so noticed problem of slipping liberty and corruption that, whether we like it or not will affect us all, but more so our children and beyond? If, when faced with the opportunity to behead the evil Count Dooku, Anakin Skywalker would have turned and instead confronted or arrested the deceptive Chancellor Palpatine, the conflict could have ended and he could have taken the true source of the evil to task and Dooku to justice. Of course he would have had to know the truth about Palpatine, who had become Anakin’s friend and mentor before this.
Instead, as many of you know, the story turns dark for the last three episodes as the Galactic Empire rises after Palpatine kills most of the Jedi “rebellion” and pronounces himself Emperor in order to bring “peace and security” to the galaxy out of the chaos. This same kind of “peace and security” was brought to Germany by Hitler after the Reichstag fire and the border “incidents” with communist Polish terrorists. The same kind of “peace” was provided to those living in ancient Rome by the likes of Nero, Herod and Caesar. One could live in relative “peace” and safety in the Roman Empire and even worship like you wanted, as long as you did not question the authorities or happen to be in the way of national agendas. It was a different kind of freedom.
Enemy Without, Within, or Both?
So where does that put America in the story of good vs. evil and in particular where does that leave the bearers and defenders of truth, today’s body of Christ? Are Christians the “Jedi” of our world? We Christians like to ascribe the idea of being the truth defenders and light bearers. Our scriptures indicate if we know who we are in Christ, this is so. Why then do so many in the Church today ignore the most potent scriptures in this regard found in Ephesians chapter 5? Read the first half of that chapter and you find that being “children of light” makes us light bearers that are to “reprove” or “expose” evil. It doesn’t say that we are to just better ourselves through the latest “three step plan” to be blessed and stay out of the conflict around us. But that is what seems to be the trend.
The “retail” focus of modern Christian teaching has become overwhelmingly centered in self-help through inward thought, meditation, experience, and counseling. This trend has undeniably drawn most away from the simple but scriptural antidote of God’s Word guided by the Holy Spirit in the individual’s life and how we are to influence the real world around us. The sufficiency of Christ so plainly laid out in the book of Colossians is nearly secondary in the modern believer’s life, replaced by experiences, entertainment and dependency on the latest church trend sweeping the country or attending the next big conference or event. We’re addicted to spiritual fixes of all sorts.
Such trends have conveniently silenced a once truly “moral majority” in America and effectively diluted the potency of Christian influence on society. This has provided fertile soil for the weeds of evil intent to flourish in America through “lesser of two evil” acceptance and personal blessing lifestyle. We Christians will accept “not-so evil” in place of “more-so evil” partly because we have become too lazy to provide a true alternative and influence politics as a body outside of one of two political parties. We have bought the lies designed to keep an otherwise powerful and holy giant asleep while the enemy throws the ropes over it and ties it to the ground. Or is it worse than that? Have we been harnessed, trained and are we being used to actually assist in a more diabolical plan?
Our Non-involvement = approval
Tyranny never succeeds without enough good people doing nothing about it. In America we had a government unique in history where not only did we influence our government; it was our responsibility to do so in order to keep a check on power. But now we have effectively removed our voice to appear peaceful, gracious and loving, and most of all “patriotic” by not dissenting. Adolph Hitler used this same mentality to his advantage. A study of the early rise of Hitler’s Nazi Germany shows a nationalist Christianity that Hitler understood and used. Millions of German Christians embraced Hitler early on and the feur claimed to be a Christian despite his involvement in occult practices, homosexuality and all the evil he unleashed. Hitler promoted an anti-communism, anti-Semitism and national Christianity that most valued and wanted to be a part of as “patriotic” Germans. And in the name of security and safety, dissent was minimal. Any resistance left was eventually dealt with forcefully by the Nazis legally through “emergency” acts and legislation imposed on Germany in the name of national security after a series of “crises”.
James Madison once said:
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; armies, and debts, and taxes are known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”
History proves this to be the case time and time again yet we act as though we are immune to the result of this evil. This was also the case in the story of Anakin Skywalker with which I have tried to illustrate; that there are plans in play to do evil as well as a plan for good. Our challenge becomes in defining where the enemy that truly threatens us is in order to fight it. The enemy from without is can be defined and can be fought but there remains an enemy within every society, and I’m not referring to those that sneak within our borders to do us harm physically as much as there being a tendency toward accumulation of power that we all are subject to. Those in positions of power experience a temptation most of us will never know. Yet somehow we live as though this threat could not exist or is minimized in America.
Riding the Wave on Home
Of course from a Christian stand point, in the end anyway, the good plan prevails. This is our blessing and this is our curse. God has always told at least someone, something about the outcome of his plan in advance. But scripture does not indicate that the plan involves standing by while evil prevails, just because we win in the end. God’s people have always had a problem understanding this. On the contrary, it is part of who a believer is to fight evil in Jesus’ name, to expose the works of darkness as we are admonished in Ephesians 5. We like to use God’s perspective as an excuse to do nothing, even though we were blessed with a government where we not only can, but have a responsibility to change what might be wrong. The prescription of scripture is to understand God’s perspective but act according to His character as revealed to us in the Word. This is because of our limited perspective and His infinite one. He can act according to His perspective because He is God. We can only act from our perspective as guided by the Spirit of God based on what is revealed to us in His Word. And that is what is expected of a believer. Accepting this truth means ignoring less verses in scripture and acting accordingly. Sitting around because one day after the rapture, God wins, is not the plan.
Anakin Skywalker, in beheading the defeated Count Dooku on his own, admittedly ignored the “way of the Jedi” instead of bringing Dooku to justice for his evil deeds. In doing so, he became a mutation and instrument of the very evil he was fighting, the ultimate weapon of control through fear in the end: Darth Vader.
The Empire rose with the help of a gifted defender of freedom who failed to rely on what he knew was true and just. Instead he became obsessed with saving that which he loved at any cost by listening to the crafty reason of an individual who used empty promises and guided crises’ to insure a problem and a reaction, so that he could provide the “solution”. Anakin did the “patriotic” thing and blindly aligned himself with the Emperor.
In a world where you can’t solve problems of the soul through “democracy” building, we must rely on what we know to be true so that we will not fall into the trap of our own understanding and thus be used in the plan to do evil. Look around, we are becoming more and more restricted at home because of fear, not security and safety. The problem is not what more draconian laws have done to you personally so far, it’s the potential of those laws, that are now on the books, to facilitate control of a once free people in the future when the original purposes of those restrictions are forgotten and blurred.
Wake Up Call
We find ourselves now at a point in our history when what is left of the Republic that was America could decline over night into a nightmare police state if one big incident or attack occurs within our borders. Fear in the public’s mind has been bolstered for many years and accelerated in the time since September 11, 2001 until it dominates every newscast, political speech and the most popular television series’. Make no mistake; our culture is ripe for such a scenario.
American Christians in particular have the solution if we wake up and remember in mass to it soon enough. Our commission is to make disciples of all men, including Muslims, and our national responsibility is to protect the gifts God has given so graciously to us. Both of these goals can only be carried out effectively if the American Christian takes individual personal responsibility and begins to care about the world around them. Wake up first to the idea that those of any religion or race can be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. And secondly that to protect the homeland will require a change back in the direction the founding fathers of our country relied upon and expected us to remember, an informed, involved and armed population ready to responsibly protect themselves, others and the constitution that limited the power of rulers to establish tyranny on our soil. Those, after all were the reasons America was formed.
I thought to myself, “Anakin, surely you can see what’s really going on!”
“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion” - Edmund Burke 1784
Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
(Ephesians 5:6-16 KJV)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)