George Offerman
In looking at the pro life landscape, there is not much going on that is outside of the ‘status quo’ for the pro life movement. It is the tea party that has shaped this election, and what remains of the pro-life movement is piggy backing up on their efforts. You see, the tea party is demonstrating passion and urgency in their message of smaller government and fiscal responsibility, as demonstrated by ALL of the candidates regardless of party. It is rather comical to see the spendthrift Demovamps now try to peddle themselves as savers and budget cutters. It just proves these slime balls are willing to say whatever they need to in order to get reelected, and nearly 50% of the electorate is stupid enough to oblige these liars.
What is interesting is how many in the pro-life movement are taking credit for the passion and urgency in this election. This can be reality tested in a very simple manner: what are the candidates actually talking about? Smaller government and fiscal conservatism. Did I mention pro life in that? No, because the pro-life movement shows neither passion nor urgency, and the candidates are not reflecting nor paying attention to NON ISSUES in this election cycle. The reason legalized child killing is a NON ISSUE in this election cycle, is because the pro-life movement is MIA. Yet there are those in the pro-life movement who will take credit once the elections are over for work done by others. And it will be reflected in the fact that no pro-life legislation will occur during this time, and there will be little outcry from these organizations.
However, the fund raising frenzy will kick into overdrive and these groups will be attempting to sell the same old and tired garbage that has been demonstrated to be sterile and faulty. This is where we are going to demonstrate, through documentation, that the majority of these organizations are shills, and not worthy of a dime of any of the faithfuls money. These organizations have no urgency or passion, and it is reflected in the lack of a plan for complete victory in ending legalized child killing. These organizations, nearly without exception, are incrementalistic in nature, and see peripheral law changes as something to break out the Champaign for. So it will be another year, and another opportunity to fundraise, and ‘boast’ about their accomplishments, while 1.5 million more babies die.
If one doubts these words, simply open your eyes and look around you. Without the tea party, there would be little going on except for Missy Smith and her ‘extremist’ commercials (which is getting way more press than all of the other organizations combined) and it would be one more dismal outcome for our side. Most of the pro-life organizations have become masters in selling mediocrity as heroic, and since most of the faithful have not seen the likes of what Missy Smith is doing, they are very conditioned into believing these inept organizations are on the cutting edge of social change and will eventually lead to the overturning of Roe. The facts just don’t corroborate this fictitious version of reality.
So, as we wind down these last few days before the elections, we will have some time afterwards to look at the scorecard and do a core assessment of what happened. It is then we will do a scorecard of those who were active in doing an activity in which legalized child killing was challenged the most, versus those who embraced the peripheral, and chose to go the ‘convenient and comfortable’ route. The countdown winds down.
to contribute to Missy Smith's campaign go to www.missysmith2010.com
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
DON'T SIT ON THE SIDELINES
George Offerman
We continue to go towards the countdown to this very pivotal election. What is at stake is really the soul of this nation and the need to get this ship turned around and going in the right direction has all to do with how we as Christians take our Christian responsibility seriously. This means voting for the candidates who stand for our beliefs, without compromise. Too many of these candidates are ‘incrementalists’ and they try to peddle this as the right and proper thing to do, in light of the political climate we supposedly live in.
If the majority of so called ‘pro life’ candidates get elected or re elected, what is the pro life movement going to do to keep these people accountable? What is the plan, and who is forwarding this plan? Are these representatives aware of a plan? And are they going to keep their word to us? And if (when) they don’t what are the ramifications of this? And who among the pro lifers, is going to keep score, and hold these people accountable. What are the tools at the disposal of the pro lifers to keep the representatives feet to the fire? As far as I can tell, all of the answers to these questions is no.
Many of the so called prominent pro life groups have endorsed questionable candidates, and continually call for ‘moderation’ and ‘timing’ as critical, as if they have a God given right to determine for how long babies ought to die before legalized child killing is finally ended. Most of these groups have no urgency about them, and plod along as if they have all the time in the world to get this done. The means of getting this done is way more important to them than the ends, which is the whole reason the pro-life movement exists in the first place. Confusion at the top flows down to the front line people, who then believe those in ‘leadership’ know what they are doing.
When looking at the results, one can only come to the conclusion that legalized child killing will be with us until the Second Coming. The more time that passes since Roe, the more complacent the movement gets, as well as more apologetic and weak in the light of its enemies. Its almost as if most don’t believe there is life in the womb, and it is more of an intellectual exercise for them than real death that occurs to real life human beings. ‘Let’s not do anything to ‘rile’ up the other side, because that is UNCHRISTIAN!” So is allowing for the most innocent to be brutally murdered, and do little to nothing about it.
This war will continue to be lost until we ‘get it’ and step up to the plate and get the job done, by incessantly using graphic images in the most main stream arenas, taking back the language from the pro deathers, holding all of these elected officials accountable with job loss if they betray us, and forcing the Churches out of there comfort zones, and god forsaken 501c3 muzzles to speak the truth again. If these items do not occur, it doesn’t matter how many fund raisers, virtual marches, billboards, banners and marches happen, we will find ourselves under the curse of God for not sparing and intervening for his most precious beings when we know what is right, and fail to act on this knowledge.
Why this seems to be such a difficult concept for the pro-life groups to grasp is beyond understanding. If anyone was a witness to a grisly murder, they would be screaming their brains out for justice to occur. Yet we have this opportunity to expose the unvarnished truth in the Nation’s Capital, and these people run with tail between legs. There is little conviction by the pro lifers to support this effort, and in the end, all who chose to do nothing will reap the crop they sown. Unfortunately for them, it will be a ‘crap’ crop because they have only given ‘crap’ reasons and excuses why they will not get involved.
To support Missy Smith, go to www.missysmith2010.com
We continue to go towards the countdown to this very pivotal election. What is at stake is really the soul of this nation and the need to get this ship turned around and going in the right direction has all to do with how we as Christians take our Christian responsibility seriously. This means voting for the candidates who stand for our beliefs, without compromise. Too many of these candidates are ‘incrementalists’ and they try to peddle this as the right and proper thing to do, in light of the political climate we supposedly live in.
If the majority of so called ‘pro life’ candidates get elected or re elected, what is the pro life movement going to do to keep these people accountable? What is the plan, and who is forwarding this plan? Are these representatives aware of a plan? And are they going to keep their word to us? And if (when) they don’t what are the ramifications of this? And who among the pro lifers, is going to keep score, and hold these people accountable. What are the tools at the disposal of the pro lifers to keep the representatives feet to the fire? As far as I can tell, all of the answers to these questions is no.
Many of the so called prominent pro life groups have endorsed questionable candidates, and continually call for ‘moderation’ and ‘timing’ as critical, as if they have a God given right to determine for how long babies ought to die before legalized child killing is finally ended. Most of these groups have no urgency about them, and plod along as if they have all the time in the world to get this done. The means of getting this done is way more important to them than the ends, which is the whole reason the pro-life movement exists in the first place. Confusion at the top flows down to the front line people, who then believe those in ‘leadership’ know what they are doing.
When looking at the results, one can only come to the conclusion that legalized child killing will be with us until the Second Coming. The more time that passes since Roe, the more complacent the movement gets, as well as more apologetic and weak in the light of its enemies. Its almost as if most don’t believe there is life in the womb, and it is more of an intellectual exercise for them than real death that occurs to real life human beings. ‘Let’s not do anything to ‘rile’ up the other side, because that is UNCHRISTIAN!” So is allowing for the most innocent to be brutally murdered, and do little to nothing about it.
This war will continue to be lost until we ‘get it’ and step up to the plate and get the job done, by incessantly using graphic images in the most main stream arenas, taking back the language from the pro deathers, holding all of these elected officials accountable with job loss if they betray us, and forcing the Churches out of there comfort zones, and god forsaken 501c3 muzzles to speak the truth again. If these items do not occur, it doesn’t matter how many fund raisers, virtual marches, billboards, banners and marches happen, we will find ourselves under the curse of God for not sparing and intervening for his most precious beings when we know what is right, and fail to act on this knowledge.
Why this seems to be such a difficult concept for the pro-life groups to grasp is beyond understanding. If anyone was a witness to a grisly murder, they would be screaming their brains out for justice to occur. Yet we have this opportunity to expose the unvarnished truth in the Nation’s Capital, and these people run with tail between legs. There is little conviction by the pro lifers to support this effort, and in the end, all who chose to do nothing will reap the crop they sown. Unfortunately for them, it will be a ‘crap’ crop because they have only given ‘crap’ reasons and excuses why they will not get involved.
To support Missy Smith, go to www.missysmith2010.com
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
George Offerman
The clock continues to tick, and the vat majority of ‘pro life’ organizations have not gotten onto, or even mentioned the Missy Smith express on their sites, newsletters or fund raising letters. They have been silent in their endorsements, and have not sent on the information pertaining to Missy Smith’s candidacy and efforts to raise funds to show the TRUTH about LEGALIZED CHILD KILLING. These groups and individuals continue to ACTIVELY and KNOWINGLY dismiss and ignore Missy smith’s candidacy, and as such, betray this movement and propagate legalized child killing by SINS OF OMISSION. These groups may represent themselves as pro life, but in truth, they are only pro life by convenience and not by conviction.
Someone sent me a link to a story about women’s suffrage, and it is powerful indeed. These brave women decided that the right to vote needed to be given them, but unlike the vast majority of women who were pro women’s voting, these women decided to take this fight to ‘the belly of the beast’. This small band of women was determined to force this issue, and did what would be seen as ‘extreme’ by today’s standards: protest in such a way that they would be arrested for their efforts and go to the heart of the matter by appearing in the nation’s capitol and directly confronting then President Woodrow Wilson
33 women, led by Alice Paul, decided to protest right in front of the white House, and this challenged the Wilson administration directly. These women were arrested and charged with ‘obstructing sidewalk traffic’ and thrown in jail. Unfortunately for these women, the warden at the Occoquan facility gave his ‘blessings’ to 40 guards, who armed with clubs, proceeded to beat these women, and some nearly died from the abuse dealt them. This event on November 15, 1917 soon became known as the “night of terror” as this small band of women ‘dared’ to challenge the Wilson administration for the right to vote.
The brutality that occurred that night was outright criminal. Lucy Burns was severely beaten, then chained with her hands over her head to the bars in her cell, and was left there all night, bleeding and gasping for air. Dora Lewis was hurled into a dark cell, her head striking an iron bed and knocking her unconscious. Her cellmate, thinking she had died, sub sequentially had a heart attack. Many of the women were starved, and given a colorless gruel to eat, which was often worm infested. Alice Paul then went on a hunger strike, and was tied to a chair, had a tube forced down her throat, and had liquid poured down her throat until she vomited. It is reported this went on for weeks until someone smuggled this information out to the press.
Many were held for several months, and the powers that be attempted to have a psychiatrist declare Alice Paul insane in order to hold her indefinitely, and some say permanently in custody. The psychiatrist did the opposite, and declared Alice Paul strong and courageous, ‘which is not a crime’. These 33 (some semblance to another number, 88) persevered in their sufferings and convictions until they got what they wanted. On August 26, 1920 the 19th amendment passed and women now had the right to vote. This would not have happened without the courageous actions and witnesses of these 33, and in looking at what they were able to accomplish, many later stated it was worth the efforts.
Fast forward to 2010. We are going on year 38 of legalized child killing, and there are only a few our there who embody what the 33 did for voting. Babies are way more important than voting, yet those who claim to be for the babies are doing nothing but running with tail between legs. No one is asking for any of the ‘pro life leadership’ to go to jail and be beaten. In fact, no one is even asking the ‘pro life leadership’ to even break the laws. The ‘pro life leadership’ is only being asked to support someone who is taking severe abuse, with a few death threats thrown in for good measure, because she has more spine and ‘gonads’ than most of the men out there, and definitely nearly all of the so called leadership out there.
I cannot imagine Alice Paul, if she were alive today, advocating a letter writing campaign, or a ‘virtual march’ to sell her ideas of victory. But that’s exactly what the ‘leadership’ is doing in the pro-life arena. Alice Paul would be right in the middle of this and challenging and confronting those who needed to hear the truth. What we have instead is a bunch of wimps and girly men who kowtow to organizations such as the IRS and all the politically correct lunatic fringe elements that might be ‘offended’ by language and graphic images. Shame on you, leaders of the so-called pro-life groups who do not support Missy Smith. You curse the ground of those who came before you to pave the way for life, liberty and freedom. Fear rules you, and if you don’t want to carry the banner of life for babies courageously, then get out of the way, and support those who do.
The clock continues to tick, and the vat majority of ‘pro life’ organizations have not gotten onto, or even mentioned the Missy Smith express on their sites, newsletters or fund raising letters. They have been silent in their endorsements, and have not sent on the information pertaining to Missy Smith’s candidacy and efforts to raise funds to show the TRUTH about LEGALIZED CHILD KILLING. These groups and individuals continue to ACTIVELY and KNOWINGLY dismiss and ignore Missy smith’s candidacy, and as such, betray this movement and propagate legalized child killing by SINS OF OMISSION. These groups may represent themselves as pro life, but in truth, they are only pro life by convenience and not by conviction.
Someone sent me a link to a story about women’s suffrage, and it is powerful indeed. These brave women decided that the right to vote needed to be given them, but unlike the vast majority of women who were pro women’s voting, these women decided to take this fight to ‘the belly of the beast’. This small band of women was determined to force this issue, and did what would be seen as ‘extreme’ by today’s standards: protest in such a way that they would be arrested for their efforts and go to the heart of the matter by appearing in the nation’s capitol and directly confronting then President Woodrow Wilson
33 women, led by Alice Paul, decided to protest right in front of the white House, and this challenged the Wilson administration directly. These women were arrested and charged with ‘obstructing sidewalk traffic’ and thrown in jail. Unfortunately for these women, the warden at the Occoquan facility gave his ‘blessings’ to 40 guards, who armed with clubs, proceeded to beat these women, and some nearly died from the abuse dealt them. This event on November 15, 1917 soon became known as the “night of terror” as this small band of women ‘dared’ to challenge the Wilson administration for the right to vote.
The brutality that occurred that night was outright criminal. Lucy Burns was severely beaten, then chained with her hands over her head to the bars in her cell, and was left there all night, bleeding and gasping for air. Dora Lewis was hurled into a dark cell, her head striking an iron bed and knocking her unconscious. Her cellmate, thinking she had died, sub sequentially had a heart attack. Many of the women were starved, and given a colorless gruel to eat, which was often worm infested. Alice Paul then went on a hunger strike, and was tied to a chair, had a tube forced down her throat, and had liquid poured down her throat until she vomited. It is reported this went on for weeks until someone smuggled this information out to the press.
Many were held for several months, and the powers that be attempted to have a psychiatrist declare Alice Paul insane in order to hold her indefinitely, and some say permanently in custody. The psychiatrist did the opposite, and declared Alice Paul strong and courageous, ‘which is not a crime’. These 33 (some semblance to another number, 88) persevered in their sufferings and convictions until they got what they wanted. On August 26, 1920 the 19th amendment passed and women now had the right to vote. This would not have happened without the courageous actions and witnesses of these 33, and in looking at what they were able to accomplish, many later stated it was worth the efforts.
Fast forward to 2010. We are going on year 38 of legalized child killing, and there are only a few our there who embody what the 33 did for voting. Babies are way more important than voting, yet those who claim to be for the babies are doing nothing but running with tail between legs. No one is asking for any of the ‘pro life leadership’ to go to jail and be beaten. In fact, no one is even asking the ‘pro life leadership’ to even break the laws. The ‘pro life leadership’ is only being asked to support someone who is taking severe abuse, with a few death threats thrown in for good measure, because she has more spine and ‘gonads’ than most of the men out there, and definitely nearly all of the so called leadership out there.
I cannot imagine Alice Paul, if she were alive today, advocating a letter writing campaign, or a ‘virtual march’ to sell her ideas of victory. But that’s exactly what the ‘leadership’ is doing in the pro-life arena. Alice Paul would be right in the middle of this and challenging and confronting those who needed to hear the truth. What we have instead is a bunch of wimps and girly men who kowtow to organizations such as the IRS and all the politically correct lunatic fringe elements that might be ‘offended’ by language and graphic images. Shame on you, leaders of the so-called pro-life groups who do not support Missy Smith. You curse the ground of those who came before you to pave the way for life, liberty and freedom. Fear rules you, and if you don’t want to carry the banner of life for babies courageously, then get out of the way, and support those who do.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
TREACHERY TOWARDS THE PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT
This is an exchange between Randall Terry and Steve Ertelt of life news. In this exchange, the personhood amendment is debated and the validity of the personhood amendment seems to be validated by Mr. Terry. This is a long posting, and I ask the reader to be patient and read this in it’s entirety.
Hi Steve (and all), Since you (Steve) responded to my article, I reprinted your response, and my response to your response. It is a great teaching moment. (We can go back and forth on this as long as you like.) Please feel free to use this any way you want. Those of you I have copied are free to cut and paste this as you see fit.
Randall Terry
Personhood Amendments:
A Righteous Battle for Life
Why are Catholics Betraying the Personhood Amendment?
Dear Friend,
While Missy Smith's heroic effort to run TV ads in DC showing aborted babies (see ads at www.MissySmith2010.com and help her if you can!) another battle is raging. It concerns the "personhood amendment" efforts in several states.
The goal of these efforts, are to declare at the state level, that a "person" (as a legal being, whose rights can be protected by law) is present at conception.
Conceptually, this could pave the way for laws protecting "persons" from assault or murder to apply to "persons" who yet reside in their mothers womb.
Here are samples of the wording:
Colorado:
Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3*, 6**, and 25*** of Article II of the state constitution, the term "person" shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.
Florida:
SECTION 28. Person Defined.--
(a) 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.
(b) This amendment shall take effect on the first day of the next regular legislative session occurring after voter approval of this amendment.
Other states have similar projects under way.
Catholic Treachery?
Two evangelical men - both of whom I consider friends; both of whom are fine, Christian men with a heart for the babies - were discussing why three different groups (who are predominantly Catholic) and certain Catholic bishops have spoken or fought against the "personhood amendment movement" that is afoot in several states.
I responded to them at length, and thought this discussion warranted the chance to help teach our readers. Sadly, a young man named Steven Ertelt, who operates LifeNews.com defended those who attack and subvert the personhood effort. So, I printed his words at the end, and my response to him. You may feel free to cut and paste this, and use it as you see fit.
The State Battles for Personhood for the Unborn
By Randall A. Terry
Those Catholic groups who stand against the personhood amendment initiatives are wrong on four fronts: 1) ethically; 2) historically; 3) politically; and 4) judicially. I will shortly prove my point.
But first, concerning the Catholic bishops who oppose these efforts,we should fear for their souls; they have led their flocks astray on a life and death matter, and will give account for this at a dreadful judgment.
I proffer that the opposition of certain Catholic bishops to the personhood amendments is not connected to their Catholicism - which would demand that they fight for babies with all their might, according to the duties laid down in Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II - but rather their refusal to follow genuine Catholic teaching. I think the opposition we see (from cleric and layman, Catholic and protestant) is a brew of ignorance, arrogance, perhaps laziness, and for certain, a fear of conflict, bad press, and of drawn out sacrifice. Please let me make my case.
1) Ethically, we have no right to not fight. We must fight as if our own lives hung in the balance. If you were about to be ripped apart, and the personhood initiative had the remotest chance to save your life (I will explain how it could in a moment), neither I, nor any bishop, nor any lay political activist has the right to say "It is not the right time." Jesus said, "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." If you or I were threatened with murder, we would want every tool available used for our rescue, however slim the chance of success.
Second (in regards to ethics), abortion is murder. It is a violation of the command, "You Shall not Murder." That command is above all the laws of men, and that command must be heralded far and wide. Moreover, Romans 13 teaches us (along with many other passages) that civil authority exists to reflect and enforce the criminal laws of God (i.e., the second tablet of the Law.) Bringing civil law in conformity with God's law is a demand from heaven, and a duty among men. To fight to make all child-killing illegal from conception to birth - state by state - legislature by legislature - at the federal legislative level, and in every court we can - is a duty on our part. To not fight is a dereliction of duty. Consider the vantage point of the victims. Can anyone really believe that the souls of the babies who have been dispatched into eternity by the abortionist's knife would say: "No! Do NOT try for a personhood amendment! The time is not right now!"
2) Historically, they are wrong. I invite you to ponder the social revolutions of the past. Think of the defeat of the Stamp Act; ponder the Boston Tea Party; consider the abolitionists and the underground railroad; think well on the suffragettes or those who ended child-labor. And finally, remember the words and images of the Civil Rights Movement. (I urge you to read Mother Mary Jones autobiography, and Martin Luther King's "Letter from the Birmingham Jail.") If you study these movements - their rhetoric, their actions, and the images they used - you will see just how incorrect the opponents of personhood amendments are. It is PRECISELY because we have NOT used tactics like these sundry movements that babies continue to die. It is (in part) because we have NOT pushed for personhood amendments at the state level - in conjunction with a tenth amendment demand for state autonomy and states' rights - that child-killing by abortion is still with us. Every single social revolution I mentioned above was won by people who did and said and showed things that were "ill timed" or "imprudent" etc. Finally, to recount the sacrifices and risks - and victories against all odds - that the heroes and martyrs of the Church have given us would take an encyclopedia.
3) Politically, the opponents of personhood eforts are mistaken as well. When looking at the histories of other social revolutions, it is safe to say that the proponents of change rarely - if ever - possessed a majority. Samuel Adams said: "It is not necessary to have a majority to prevail, only an irate tireless minority, keen to set brush fires in the minds of men." We have forgotten - or betrayed - this truth. The reason the pro-life movement has SO LITTLE political strength - and it is waining by the year - is because our political activities contradict our message. I ask you: Is abortion murder, or not? If it is, then why are we so timid and tepid? We should do EVERYTHING in our power to make it illegal again. When the abolitionists or the suffragettes fought politically against all odds, year after year, and were shot down again and again, they did not resort to the silliness of "We need a better time..." or "We need to educate people more." No; they screamed louder. They became more shrill in their cries for justice. That is why they prevailed politically. They were to politics, what the importunate widow was to prayer.
Concerning saving lives now - as I alluded to above - we will save more lives now by this type of activity than without it. Let me explain.
If a young woman sees, hears, or reads a news story about those "crazy people" making all these sacrifices to pass a personhood amendment because "abortion is murder," she may choose life for her baby (if she is considering killing the child.) I know of what I speak: After my appearance on Oprah years ago, in two separate cities I was approached by two separate women, who both placed a baby in my arms, and told me they saw me on Oprah. Both of them had abortions scheduled, and both of them cancelled their appointment, and gave life to their child. How many other babies were saved because of my appearance on Oprah? I did not have pictures of babies; I was not counseling those ladies; I was simply declaring the truth that abortion was murder on a TV show. And by the way: I was on Oprah because I was making a fuss; I wasn't waiting for the "timing to be right." I was screaming my lungs out - in word and deed - and it was newsworthy. This is critical to any social revolution. The opponents of personhood whine that they get bad press, or no press. Well, do something newsworthy - like trying to change the state constitution - and you will get a lot of press!
4) Judicially, those opposed to personhood amendments are wrong as well. The pipeline to the Supreme Court can take 3 - 10 years. If one of these efforts in any state prevails, it could be the case that actually overturns Roe. We cannot wait for the perfect 5 - 4 majority to bring a case. Our next President could appoint the final vote to overturn Roe, but we cannot wait to find out. The pipeline should be FILLED with cases from as many states as possible. The more states that demand personhood, and the more pressure that is thereby brought to bear in the judiciary, the more judges look like tyrants and fools for justifying murder and harboring murderers. And who knows; maybe a Governor with some backbone will tell the federal courts to "go to hell"; that he/she intends to uphold the state's constitution, including protecting the "persons" of the unborn.
Moreover, judicially - in my opinion - the single greatest source of the loss of life, liberty, and justice in America, is the Supreme Court, followed by various state courts such as in Vermont and Massachusetts. Think of how many evils the Courts have unleashed on us. But what is worse than this - may God forgive us, and our forbears inspire us to battle - is that our founders saw the danger of a judicial oligarchy, and gave us protection against it in article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution. I.e., congress can pass a law, and tell the Court they have no jurisdiction in that area.
America has been overrun by judicial tyrants who - with their lifetime appointments - are beyond the grasp of voters. If our elected federal officials had used the above remedy (Article 3, Section 2), child-killing and a host of lesser evils would have been destroyed. Moreover, the ability to impeach judges who violate their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States (such as in the case of a judge who decrees a "right" to murder our offspring) has been left to rot. Our political leaders are often cowards and traitors, by virtue of their sins of omission; i.e, they submit to judicial decrees, rather than defying them, and impeaching the lawless judges. Think what would have happened in Massachusetts if Governor Romney and the State Legislature had refused to obey the State Court when it ORDERED them to create homosexual marriage, and rather proceeded to impeach the judges that "so ordered" that abomination. Instead, Romney and company groveled like the frightened Roman Senate before Caesar, and thereby dragged the nation close to the abyss.
I will not belabor the point. The simple fact is that ethically, historically, politically, and judicially, the "personhood amendment movement" is correct in its mission. For that matter, so is anyone who calls for a federal law to outlaw all child-killing from conception till birth, with an Article 3, Section 2 prohibition of Court review.
These efforts do more to "educate people" than most (if not all) of the other efforts combined. Why? Because these efforts show that someone actually believes that abortion is murder, that babies should be protected by law, and is therefore trying to pass a law or amendment to protect babies. The press coverage alone is worth its weight in gold, because the conflict and controversy surrounding the amendment forces people to think; it "educates" them.
Those who oppose these efforts - and sit (alive) in their comfort, pontificating follies, speaking of "better timing" - are simply wrong. But far worse; in my opinion, many of them have become like the Vichy government of France that collaborated with the Germans in the 1940s. Think about it. Child-killing could not continue without the silence, inactivity, fear, and treachery of those who "wait for a better time."
It is not the Catholicism of those who oppose personhood that misguides them, but rather their refusal to obey it.
Your Servant in Christ, and a Slave to the Battle to End Legalized Child-killing,
Randall Terry
--------- Steve Ertelt's Response Follows, Word for Word-------
Note from Randall: I would not normally print a response to an article like the one above. However, the man who responds below holds himself out as a "news source" for pro-life news. He does have several thousand readers. Those readers need to know that Mr. Ertelt's ethical compass is badly damaged, as his response (and my response to him) clearly shows.
Here is Mr. Ertelt's response to my above article.
Let me provide you with the counter view, and the one I believe Phyllis understands:
There are many pro-life groups and millions of pro-life people (including perhaps hundreds of thousands in Colorado who will be voting no on Amendment 62 soon) that the personhood amendment strategy will not be successful at this juncture in the abortion battle. That doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with the strategy does not accept the fact that an unborn child is a human being, or person, starting at the moment of conception (fertilization). They do believe that wholehertedly.
Their position is not against personhood amendments, but for the pro-life movement to do some due diligence first. Otherwise we're casting our pearls before swine, if you will.
The only way to ever get a personhood amendment upheld at the Supreme Court level, where it will assuredly go after the pro-abortion side files a lawsuit against it, is to have a pro-life Supreme Court. At best, we have a Supreme Court that is pro-abortion on a 5-4 margin.
The only way to have a pro-life Supreme Court is to have a pro-life president to select nominees and a pro-life Senate to confirm them. The first part of that battle (the Senate) takes place next month. The second part of the battle takes place in 2012 (replacing Obama with a pro-life president).
Once we get to the point that a personhood amendment will be upheld in court and not be overturned (adding to the pro-Roe, pro-abortion case law further establishing unlimited abortion as a legal precedent) then, and only then, does pressing for one make sense. (And even then, the best legal strategy would likely be an abortion ban similar to the South Dakota measures, rather than a personhood amendment, but that's another debate).
What's sadly ironic to me is that the personhood amendment backers here in Colorado suggest there's perhaps not even a single pro-life member of the Supreme Court willing to uphold a personhood amendment (I strongly disagree). That, of course, makes the case further because it makes it more abundantly clear that the time and money spent on a personhood amendment is entirely wasted by running into a 9-0 Supreme Court that will overturn it immediately and make Colorado taxpayers pay for Planned Parenthood's legal bills.
Thus, those in the pro-life movement who believe the personhood amendment strategy is currently misguaded aren't pro-abortion or against personhood. What they're for is relying on sound legal and political strategy and principles to actually have the Supreme Court overturn Roe and uphold an abortion ban or a personhood amendment rather than not doing our homework beforehand and setting ourselves up for a big loss and the mainstream media printing the pro-life movement's obituary.
Blessings,
Steven
-----------------My Response to Steve Ertelt Follows--------------
Note From Randall: This is the core of the issues at hand. I pray each of you "get it"
Hi Steve and All.
I was very shocked and disappointed by your [Steve's] response.
It appears you did not read my response carefully before you responded, because you did not respond to key historical facts and principles of social revolution. If you did read it carefully, then you are a danger to yourself and others; to perpetrate that which is untrue after having been told the truth shows arrogance, or an unteachable spirit, or a lack of intellectual integrity. The simple truth is that after 38 years, the outline you gave has left us 50,000,000 dead babies, with no end in sight.
What makes your statement dangerous are that parts of it are true; most of what you said regarding the process of the Court, the President, etc is accurate; what makes the conclusions false is what you left out.
I will use parts of your response to show the inaccuracy of your position.
For example, to state that the judicial overturn of a personhood amendment would bring back unlimited child-killing, including the 24 hour waiting periods, or the parental involvement laws in the states that have them, is simply untrue. Many efforts and laws have been made - including the first so called "partial birth abortion" ban - that have been struck down by courts, but have left other meager gains the pro-life movement has made intact. To say otherwise is untrue.
We could have 100 defeats in the courts - but that would not necessarily set us back; it might bring us closer to victory. Study the cases brought against the government regarding the Vietnam war. While they did not prevail in Court, they prevailed in the court of public opinion, which led to a change in the administration's position.
Next, the pro-life movement doing its "due diligence" would mean that we assess our tactics and strategy for the last 38 years. In any other arena, or in any business, we [the pro-life movement] would be defunct. We would be out of business, because we have failed in our clear, simple objective; namely, to make child-killing illegal again from conception till birth, including making illegal the pill, IUDs, Norplant, etc. The "due diligence" you speak of would lead us to conclude that our major leaders and groups have failed, and that their strategies - or at least their judgment - must be suspect, or even disregarded. I.e., when Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy failed, and the fallacy of his "peace in our times" trust in Hitler showed itself for what it was, England threw him out, and replaced him with Churchill.
Next, the "pearls before swine" line lacks meaning. How could telling people that babies are persons who need to be recognized by law be putting "pearls before swine?" Rather, it shows people what we believe. Use your logic and rhetoric in the fight to end slavery. "Telling slave owners that we must recognize slaves as persons is throwing our pearls before swine." One would think the slaves would have a different view of our efforts. Also, given your logic, we would never fight for laws to protect the babies. What better time than now to say that babies who have landfills for graves should be considered persons?
You say that pro-life opposition to the personhood amendment is "relying on sound legal and political strategy and principles to actually have the Supreme Court overturn Roe and uphold an abortion ban or a personhood amendment rather than not doing our homework beforehand and setting ourselves up for a big loss and the mainstream media printing the pro-life movement's obituary."
First of all, history has shown - both the pro-life movement's history, and the successful social revolutions of which I spoke - that what you propose is not sound; rather, it has failed. Partly it has failed because it lacks urgency. NOTHING you wrote rings of urgency for the babies; nothing screams "MURDER!" The lack of urgency tells the world that we do not really believe babies are being butchered, and thrown in landfills.
Second, the "mainstream media" has already tried to write "the pro-life movement's obituary", and nearly did so in the Presidential election of 2008. It was a "non-issue." But since then, the "mainstream media" has covered the pro-life "war on the ground" at Notre Dame, the fight against Sotomayor (including the arrests), the fierce battle against health care - including the disruption of Howard Dean's meeting on national TV, and the sit in and arrests at Nancy Pelosi's office - the burning in effigy of various politicians who support child-killing or supported Kagan, and now Missy Smith's incredible campaign for the U.S. House in which she is showing murdered babies in her TV ads.
You see my point, Steve. If it was not for the fierce and unflagging efforts of our Insurrecta Nex team (and others like us) in these and other battles, the "pro-life movement" would be ignored. But - thanks be to God - the mainstream press has had the integrity to report accurately what we have done. It is not an obituary they write, but rather an account of our calls to battle. We will do the same in the battle for personhood.
I tell you, Steve, and the others reading this: I have been on the front lines for over a quarter of a century: The pro-life movement became the pro-life establishment; then the pro-life establishment became the pro-life industry; then the pro-life industry became pro-life collaborators with the child-killers.
I will write more on that theme soon.
I will also continue to expose the curse of the 501c3 tax exempt deal with the devil, that keeps these "pro-life groups" from getting behind Missy Smith, or even sending people to her web site. By the way, I have looked at your site regarding Missy Smith's campaign, and noticed that you did not have the integrity to put a link to her ads at www.MissySmith2010.com. Are you one of those tax exempt groups that has taken the bit and bridle of the IRS for the sake of a few pieces of silver?
I rest my case from my first response about the personhood amendments, knowing that you have not disproved anything I have said historically or tactically; rather, you have confirmed it.
Go ahead Steve, read Mother Mary Jones Autobiography, and Dr. King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail. And take the time to read what I wrote concerning this battle in Colorado and elsewhere. See how real social revolution works. And when you are ready to fast, and pray, and ponder those great masterpieces (not including mine!), if you have the clarity of mind and wisdom of God, you will turn from the failed strategy you propose, and become a true "abolitionist."
Sincerely,
Randall Terry
P.S. By the way, I am glad you pulled down the comment about your 5,000 releases on your web site, and the hope for 5,000 more. You do not want people to see that you have no plan to end child-killing soon, and that your vision is to stay comfortable in your chair in front of your computer for the next 17 years. Come to DC, Steven, and our battle proven war-band will teach you what real social revolution
This is an exchange between Randall Terry and Steve Ertelt of life news. In this exchange, the personhood amendment is debated and the validity of the personhood amendment seems to be validated by Mr. Terry. This is a long posting, and I ask the reader to be patient and read this in it’s entirety.
Hi Steve (and all), Since you (Steve) responded to my article, I reprinted your response, and my response to your response. It is a great teaching moment. (We can go back and forth on this as long as you like.) Please feel free to use this any way you want. Those of you I have copied are free to cut and paste this as you see fit.
Randall Terry
Personhood Amendments:
A Righteous Battle for Life
Why are Catholics Betraying the Personhood Amendment?
Dear Friend,
While Missy Smith's heroic effort to run TV ads in DC showing aborted babies (see ads at www.MissySmith2010.com and help her if you can!) another battle is raging. It concerns the "personhood amendment" efforts in several states.
The goal of these efforts, are to declare at the state level, that a "person" (as a legal being, whose rights can be protected by law) is present at conception.
Conceptually, this could pave the way for laws protecting "persons" from assault or murder to apply to "persons" who yet reside in their mothers womb.
Here are samples of the wording:
Colorado:
Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3*, 6**, and 25*** of Article II of the state constitution, the term "person" shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.
Florida:
SECTION 28. Person Defined.--
(a) 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.
(b) This amendment shall take effect on the first day of the next regular legislative session occurring after voter approval of this amendment.
Other states have similar projects under way.
Catholic Treachery?
Two evangelical men - both of whom I consider friends; both of whom are fine, Christian men with a heart for the babies - were discussing why three different groups (who are predominantly Catholic) and certain Catholic bishops have spoken or fought against the "personhood amendment movement" that is afoot in several states.
I responded to them at length, and thought this discussion warranted the chance to help teach our readers. Sadly, a young man named Steven Ertelt, who operates LifeNews.com defended those who attack and subvert the personhood effort. So, I printed his words at the end, and my response to him. You may feel free to cut and paste this, and use it as you see fit.
The State Battles for Personhood for the Unborn
By Randall A. Terry
Those Catholic groups who stand against the personhood amendment initiatives are wrong on four fronts: 1) ethically; 2) historically; 3) politically; and 4) judicially. I will shortly prove my point.
But first, concerning the Catholic bishops who oppose these efforts,we should fear for their souls; they have led their flocks astray on a life and death matter, and will give account for this at a dreadful judgment.
I proffer that the opposition of certain Catholic bishops to the personhood amendments is not connected to their Catholicism - which would demand that they fight for babies with all their might, according to the duties laid down in Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II - but rather their refusal to follow genuine Catholic teaching. I think the opposition we see (from cleric and layman, Catholic and protestant) is a brew of ignorance, arrogance, perhaps laziness, and for certain, a fear of conflict, bad press, and of drawn out sacrifice. Please let me make my case.
1) Ethically, we have no right to not fight. We must fight as if our own lives hung in the balance. If you were about to be ripped apart, and the personhood initiative had the remotest chance to save your life (I will explain how it could in a moment), neither I, nor any bishop, nor any lay political activist has the right to say "It is not the right time." Jesus said, "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." If you or I were threatened with murder, we would want every tool available used for our rescue, however slim the chance of success.
Second (in regards to ethics), abortion is murder. It is a violation of the command, "You Shall not Murder." That command is above all the laws of men, and that command must be heralded far and wide. Moreover, Romans 13 teaches us (along with many other passages) that civil authority exists to reflect and enforce the criminal laws of God (i.e., the second tablet of the Law.) Bringing civil law in conformity with God's law is a demand from heaven, and a duty among men. To fight to make all child-killing illegal from conception to birth - state by state - legislature by legislature - at the federal legislative level, and in every court we can - is a duty on our part. To not fight is a dereliction of duty. Consider the vantage point of the victims. Can anyone really believe that the souls of the babies who have been dispatched into eternity by the abortionist's knife would say: "No! Do NOT try for a personhood amendment! The time is not right now!"
2) Historically, they are wrong. I invite you to ponder the social revolutions of the past. Think of the defeat of the Stamp Act; ponder the Boston Tea Party; consider the abolitionists and the underground railroad; think well on the suffragettes or those who ended child-labor. And finally, remember the words and images of the Civil Rights Movement. (I urge you to read Mother Mary Jones autobiography, and Martin Luther King's "Letter from the Birmingham Jail.") If you study these movements - their rhetoric, their actions, and the images they used - you will see just how incorrect the opponents of personhood amendments are. It is PRECISELY because we have NOT used tactics like these sundry movements that babies continue to die. It is (in part) because we have NOT pushed for personhood amendments at the state level - in conjunction with a tenth amendment demand for state autonomy and states' rights - that child-killing by abortion is still with us. Every single social revolution I mentioned above was won by people who did and said and showed things that were "ill timed" or "imprudent" etc. Finally, to recount the sacrifices and risks - and victories against all odds - that the heroes and martyrs of the Church have given us would take an encyclopedia.
3) Politically, the opponents of personhood eforts are mistaken as well. When looking at the histories of other social revolutions, it is safe to say that the proponents of change rarely - if ever - possessed a majority. Samuel Adams said: "It is not necessary to have a majority to prevail, only an irate tireless minority, keen to set brush fires in the minds of men." We have forgotten - or betrayed - this truth. The reason the pro-life movement has SO LITTLE political strength - and it is waining by the year - is because our political activities contradict our message. I ask you: Is abortion murder, or not? If it is, then why are we so timid and tepid? We should do EVERYTHING in our power to make it illegal again. When the abolitionists or the suffragettes fought politically against all odds, year after year, and were shot down again and again, they did not resort to the silliness of "We need a better time..." or "We need to educate people more." No; they screamed louder. They became more shrill in their cries for justice. That is why they prevailed politically. They were to politics, what the importunate widow was to prayer.
Concerning saving lives now - as I alluded to above - we will save more lives now by this type of activity than without it. Let me explain.
If a young woman sees, hears, or reads a news story about those "crazy people" making all these sacrifices to pass a personhood amendment because "abortion is murder," she may choose life for her baby (if she is considering killing the child.) I know of what I speak: After my appearance on Oprah years ago, in two separate cities I was approached by two separate women, who both placed a baby in my arms, and told me they saw me on Oprah. Both of them had abortions scheduled, and both of them cancelled their appointment, and gave life to their child. How many other babies were saved because of my appearance on Oprah? I did not have pictures of babies; I was not counseling those ladies; I was simply declaring the truth that abortion was murder on a TV show. And by the way: I was on Oprah because I was making a fuss; I wasn't waiting for the "timing to be right." I was screaming my lungs out - in word and deed - and it was newsworthy. This is critical to any social revolution. The opponents of personhood whine that they get bad press, or no press. Well, do something newsworthy - like trying to change the state constitution - and you will get a lot of press!
4) Judicially, those opposed to personhood amendments are wrong as well. The pipeline to the Supreme Court can take 3 - 10 years. If one of these efforts in any state prevails, it could be the case that actually overturns Roe. We cannot wait for the perfect 5 - 4 majority to bring a case. Our next President could appoint the final vote to overturn Roe, but we cannot wait to find out. The pipeline should be FILLED with cases from as many states as possible. The more states that demand personhood, and the more pressure that is thereby brought to bear in the judiciary, the more judges look like tyrants and fools for justifying murder and harboring murderers. And who knows; maybe a Governor with some backbone will tell the federal courts to "go to hell"; that he/she intends to uphold the state's constitution, including protecting the "persons" of the unborn.
Moreover, judicially - in my opinion - the single greatest source of the loss of life, liberty, and justice in America, is the Supreme Court, followed by various state courts such as in Vermont and Massachusetts. Think of how many evils the Courts have unleashed on us. But what is worse than this - may God forgive us, and our forbears inspire us to battle - is that our founders saw the danger of a judicial oligarchy, and gave us protection against it in article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution. I.e., congress can pass a law, and tell the Court they have no jurisdiction in that area.
America has been overrun by judicial tyrants who - with their lifetime appointments - are beyond the grasp of voters. If our elected federal officials had used the above remedy (Article 3, Section 2), child-killing and a host of lesser evils would have been destroyed. Moreover, the ability to impeach judges who violate their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States (such as in the case of a judge who decrees a "right" to murder our offspring) has been left to rot. Our political leaders are often cowards and traitors, by virtue of their sins of omission; i.e, they submit to judicial decrees, rather than defying them, and impeaching the lawless judges. Think what would have happened in Massachusetts if Governor Romney and the State Legislature had refused to obey the State Court when it ORDERED them to create homosexual marriage, and rather proceeded to impeach the judges that "so ordered" that abomination. Instead, Romney and company groveled like the frightened Roman Senate before Caesar, and thereby dragged the nation close to the abyss.
I will not belabor the point. The simple fact is that ethically, historically, politically, and judicially, the "personhood amendment movement" is correct in its mission. For that matter, so is anyone who calls for a federal law to outlaw all child-killing from conception till birth, with an Article 3, Section 2 prohibition of Court review.
These efforts do more to "educate people" than most (if not all) of the other efforts combined. Why? Because these efforts show that someone actually believes that abortion is murder, that babies should be protected by law, and is therefore trying to pass a law or amendment to protect babies. The press coverage alone is worth its weight in gold, because the conflict and controversy surrounding the amendment forces people to think; it "educates" them.
Those who oppose these efforts - and sit (alive) in their comfort, pontificating follies, speaking of "better timing" - are simply wrong. But far worse; in my opinion, many of them have become like the Vichy government of France that collaborated with the Germans in the 1940s. Think about it. Child-killing could not continue without the silence, inactivity, fear, and treachery of those who "wait for a better time."
It is not the Catholicism of those who oppose personhood that misguides them, but rather their refusal to obey it.
Your Servant in Christ, and a Slave to the Battle to End Legalized Child-killing,
Randall Terry
--------- Steve Ertelt's Response Follows, Word for Word-------
Note from Randall: I would not normally print a response to an article like the one above. However, the man who responds below holds himself out as a "news source" for pro-life news. He does have several thousand readers. Those readers need to know that Mr. Ertelt's ethical compass is badly damaged, as his response (and my response to him) clearly shows.
Here is Mr. Ertelt's response to my above article.
Let me provide you with the counter view, and the one I believe Phyllis understands:
There are many pro-life groups and millions of pro-life people (including perhaps hundreds of thousands in Colorado who will be voting no on Amendment 62 soon) that the personhood amendment strategy will not be successful at this juncture in the abortion battle. That doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with the strategy does not accept the fact that an unborn child is a human being, or person, starting at the moment of conception (fertilization). They do believe that wholehertedly.
Their position is not against personhood amendments, but for the pro-life movement to do some due diligence first. Otherwise we're casting our pearls before swine, if you will.
The only way to ever get a personhood amendment upheld at the Supreme Court level, where it will assuredly go after the pro-abortion side files a lawsuit against it, is to have a pro-life Supreme Court. At best, we have a Supreme Court that is pro-abortion on a 5-4 margin.
The only way to have a pro-life Supreme Court is to have a pro-life president to select nominees and a pro-life Senate to confirm them. The first part of that battle (the Senate) takes place next month. The second part of the battle takes place in 2012 (replacing Obama with a pro-life president).
Once we get to the point that a personhood amendment will be upheld in court and not be overturned (adding to the pro-Roe, pro-abortion case law further establishing unlimited abortion as a legal precedent) then, and only then, does pressing for one make sense. (And even then, the best legal strategy would likely be an abortion ban similar to the South Dakota measures, rather than a personhood amendment, but that's another debate).
What's sadly ironic to me is that the personhood amendment backers here in Colorado suggest there's perhaps not even a single pro-life member of the Supreme Court willing to uphold a personhood amendment (I strongly disagree). That, of course, makes the case further because it makes it more abundantly clear that the time and money spent on a personhood amendment is entirely wasted by running into a 9-0 Supreme Court that will overturn it immediately and make Colorado taxpayers pay for Planned Parenthood's legal bills.
Thus, those in the pro-life movement who believe the personhood amendment strategy is currently misguaded aren't pro-abortion or against personhood. What they're for is relying on sound legal and political strategy and principles to actually have the Supreme Court overturn Roe and uphold an abortion ban or a personhood amendment rather than not doing our homework beforehand and setting ourselves up for a big loss and the mainstream media printing the pro-life movement's obituary.
Blessings,
Steven
-----------------My Response to Steve Ertelt Follows--------------
Note From Randall: This is the core of the issues at hand. I pray each of you "get it"
Hi Steve and All.
I was very shocked and disappointed by your [Steve's] response.
It appears you did not read my response carefully before you responded, because you did not respond to key historical facts and principles of social revolution. If you did read it carefully, then you are a danger to yourself and others; to perpetrate that which is untrue after having been told the truth shows arrogance, or an unteachable spirit, or a lack of intellectual integrity. The simple truth is that after 38 years, the outline you gave has left us 50,000,000 dead babies, with no end in sight.
What makes your statement dangerous are that parts of it are true; most of what you said regarding the process of the Court, the President, etc is accurate; what makes the conclusions false is what you left out.
I will use parts of your response to show the inaccuracy of your position.
For example, to state that the judicial overturn of a personhood amendment would bring back unlimited child-killing, including the 24 hour waiting periods, or the parental involvement laws in the states that have them, is simply untrue. Many efforts and laws have been made - including the first so called "partial birth abortion" ban - that have been struck down by courts, but have left other meager gains the pro-life movement has made intact. To say otherwise is untrue.
We could have 100 defeats in the courts - but that would not necessarily set us back; it might bring us closer to victory. Study the cases brought against the government regarding the Vietnam war. While they did not prevail in Court, they prevailed in the court of public opinion, which led to a change in the administration's position.
Next, the pro-life movement doing its "due diligence" would mean that we assess our tactics and strategy for the last 38 years. In any other arena, or in any business, we [the pro-life movement] would be defunct. We would be out of business, because we have failed in our clear, simple objective; namely, to make child-killing illegal again from conception till birth, including making illegal the pill, IUDs, Norplant, etc. The "due diligence" you speak of would lead us to conclude that our major leaders and groups have failed, and that their strategies - or at least their judgment - must be suspect, or even disregarded. I.e., when Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy failed, and the fallacy of his "peace in our times" trust in Hitler showed itself for what it was, England threw him out, and replaced him with Churchill.
Next, the "pearls before swine" line lacks meaning. How could telling people that babies are persons who need to be recognized by law be putting "pearls before swine?" Rather, it shows people what we believe. Use your logic and rhetoric in the fight to end slavery. "Telling slave owners that we must recognize slaves as persons is throwing our pearls before swine." One would think the slaves would have a different view of our efforts. Also, given your logic, we would never fight for laws to protect the babies. What better time than now to say that babies who have landfills for graves should be considered persons?
You say that pro-life opposition to the personhood amendment is "relying on sound legal and political strategy and principles to actually have the Supreme Court overturn Roe and uphold an abortion ban or a personhood amendment rather than not doing our homework beforehand and setting ourselves up for a big loss and the mainstream media printing the pro-life movement's obituary."
First of all, history has shown - both the pro-life movement's history, and the successful social revolutions of which I spoke - that what you propose is not sound; rather, it has failed. Partly it has failed because it lacks urgency. NOTHING you wrote rings of urgency for the babies; nothing screams "MURDER!" The lack of urgency tells the world that we do not really believe babies are being butchered, and thrown in landfills.
Second, the "mainstream media" has already tried to write "the pro-life movement's obituary", and nearly did so in the Presidential election of 2008. It was a "non-issue." But since then, the "mainstream media" has covered the pro-life "war on the ground" at Notre Dame, the fight against Sotomayor (including the arrests), the fierce battle against health care - including the disruption of Howard Dean's meeting on national TV, and the sit in and arrests at Nancy Pelosi's office - the burning in effigy of various politicians who support child-killing or supported Kagan, and now Missy Smith's incredible campaign for the U.S. House in which she is showing murdered babies in her TV ads.
You see my point, Steve. If it was not for the fierce and unflagging efforts of our Insurrecta Nex team (and others like us) in these and other battles, the "pro-life movement" would be ignored. But - thanks be to God - the mainstream press has had the integrity to report accurately what we have done. It is not an obituary they write, but rather an account of our calls to battle. We will do the same in the battle for personhood.
I tell you, Steve, and the others reading this: I have been on the front lines for over a quarter of a century: The pro-life movement became the pro-life establishment; then the pro-life establishment became the pro-life industry; then the pro-life industry became pro-life collaborators with the child-killers.
I will write more on that theme soon.
I will also continue to expose the curse of the 501c3 tax exempt deal with the devil, that keeps these "pro-life groups" from getting behind Missy Smith, or even sending people to her web site. By the way, I have looked at your site regarding Missy Smith's campaign, and noticed that you did not have the integrity to put a link to her ads at www.MissySmith2010.com. Are you one of those tax exempt groups that has taken the bit and bridle of the IRS for the sake of a few pieces of silver?
I rest my case from my first response about the personhood amendments, knowing that you have not disproved anything I have said historically or tactically; rather, you have confirmed it.
Go ahead Steve, read Mother Mary Jones Autobiography, and Dr. King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail. And take the time to read what I wrote concerning this battle in Colorado and elsewhere. See how real social revolution works. And when you are ready to fast, and pray, and ponder those great masterpieces (not including mine!), if you have the clarity of mind and wisdom of God, you will turn from the failed strategy you propose, and become a true "abolitionist."
Sincerely,
Randall Terry
P.S. By the way, I am glad you pulled down the comment about your 5,000 releases on your web site, and the hope for 5,000 more. You do not want people to see that you have no plan to end child-killing soon, and that your vision is to stay comfortable in your chair in front of your computer for the next 17 years. Come to DC, Steven, and our battle proven war-band will teach you what real social revolution
Monday, October 25, 2010
FR. FRANK PAVONE INTERVIEW
George Offerman
I had the opportunity to interview Fr. Frank Pavone last Friday, and this posting will touch on the highlights of this interview. As mentioned before, representatives from Priests for Life reached out to me to do this interview and the timing of this happened to coincide with Missy Smith’s campaign for the congressional seat in Washington, D.C. The interview, originally scheduled for 15 minutes, went 40 minutes, and for the sake of brevity, I had to condense as much as possible without changing the esence of what was said. I had pre determined questions, but due to the nature of the discussion, we went into other aspects of the pro life organizations and the general problems with them. I will write the questions, and then give Fr. Frank’s response.
Does the 501c3 tax exempt status hurt the Churches ability to address politicians and laws?
Fr. Frank: Not if the Church has allowed the organization to do the work. As far as PFL (Priests for Life) is concerned, we have to deal not only with civil law, but Church law. We have the ability to put out non partisan voter guides, but cannot explicitly point out or endorse any specific candidates. However, the Church does need to allow for the full extent of the c3 laws, and in some quadrants, there is some hesitancy to do this. Church teachings often are opposed to the reality of the situation, in that they do not always teach with the conviction that they need to. There can be many reasons for this, but much of it can be attributed to sometimes being out of touch with the common man and his situation. Then there is the larger church culture that seems to imply ‘don’t push this too much”.
You have talked about influencing the 2010 elections, yet you are a 501c3. Is it true that you cannot advocate for the defeat of a candidate by name that supports the murder of babies?
Fr. Frank: I cannot communicate that through the PFL channels. As a private individual, I would be able to do so, but it is a very fine line between identifying my own beliefs as opposed to my association with PFL. There are not only civil laws I must be aware of, but church law since I am a Priest. Traditionally speaking, the church has attempted to stay clear of partisan politics, and discourages priests from doing this activity.
Fr. Frank, you have a great deal of influence and I think it would make a big difference if you did get out there and make a clear statement about Missy Smith’s candidacy, especially given the fact she is showing graphic images, that corresponds with your own statement “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion”.
Fr. Frank: I know Missy Smith very well, and am all for her doing what she is doing. I do believe America needs to see these images and what she (Missy) is doing is very courageous and needs to be supported by the pro life movement. But I want you to know that I use images on my television show and advocate for others to do the same. I think there is a hesitancy to do this with many of the pro life organizations due to various reasons, and there seems to be a significant amount of discomfort with these ads.
Fr Frank, your television show is’ preaching to the choir’. Missy Smith’s ads are going into the ‘belly of the beast’ and are garnering a great deal of ‘hate mail’. Missy informed me that she needs to empty her voice mail at least 2 times per day from all of the hate and vile messages left for her. Her spots are hard hitting and have to be run, unedited on the MSM airwaves. This is unprecedented not only in politics, but in the nation’s capital, and for the first time that I can remember; the pro death camp is on the defensive. Then we have an organization such as the Susan B. Anthony List that is embroiled in a dispute over billboards in Ohio. It is beyond me that many in this ’movement’ cannot distinguish between spending a great deal of money defending billboards that will do little to nothing, versus a fair amount of money in showing the graphic nature of abortion to the nation’s capital, where many of the politicians will have to see it. Talk about not understanding the nature of the battle, or knowing where to spend the money in a very cost effective way. Where is the coverage and support for Missy Smith if we really need to show America what abortion is?
Fr Frank: First, I agree with you. It is unprecedented for the nation’s capital, and needed. However, there seems to be among many in the pro life movement a lack of political savvy, political willfulness. There is also a level of discomfort and even a fear of being explicit with the images used. There have also been debates about how to best deal with the elections and many of the groups have done what they think they need to do with getting candidates elected. Many want to stay out of controversy in order to get many of these candidates into office.
Here’s the problem with that. Most of these so called ‘pro life’ candidates, once elected, don’t follow through on their promises. We have had too many instances in which supposed pro life candidates, once in office, turn on us, such as Lindsay Graham, then get re elected, and are supported by the PRO LIFE ORGANIZATIONS! Then you have people like Steve Ertelt of life news, stating the way to ‘win’ is to get a majority of pro lifers in the legislative and executive branches. Maybe he does not remember, but we had that opportunity with Bush, and it didn’t happen. We had the Sotomayor and Kagan nominations, and virtual silence by nearly all of the pro life movement, and I have this well documented. Many in the ‘pro life movement’ seem to have no clue about this fight, and even when they do identify a source of the front, do little to nothing about it.
Fr. Frank: Accountability is a problem. It seems as time goes on the passion begins to wane. The church moves slow because it is institutionalized and sometimes it takes longer to get things going due to the precedents set….
Sorry to interrupt you, but the Church is 2000 years old, and it’s understandable for institutionalization there, but the pro life movement is 38 years old, and there is really no excuse for it to be institutionalized already.
Fr. Frank: yes, it seems to have happened quickly. Many seemed to have lost touch with the mission of what we need to do.
I’m glad you said that. I’m telling you now, that there will be a great deal of anger by the ‘man on the street’ after this is said and done, after the election. There is no passion, no ‘urgency’ in this movement anymore. Things just plod along. The vast majority of the ‘leadership’ is out of touch with the front line people in this movement. Missy Smith’s ads will get out there after the election, and many of the front line people are going to be furious with much of the leadership because they didn’t inform them of this option, and they took it upon themselves to make decisions for these people. I consider myself a front line pro lifer. I get up on Saturday mornings, regardless of the weather, and stand out at the mills and counsel women. I am sick of doing this, and I want to see this holocaust end. Unfortunately, there are organizations that have huge budgets, nice offices, some of the leaders are well compensated for speeches, and get invited to activities. They would be in ‘existential angst’ if legalized child killing ended tomorrow. Unlike them, I have a career, and pay my bills through those means, and want to see every worthwhile tool used to end this holocaust. Most of the front line people think the way I do, and don’t think these organizations have the ‘right’ to speak for us. These organizations are going to be in trouble once the front line people find out the opportunity was there, but they didn’t pass this on. And by the way, we are documenting who is helping and who is not. And we will be publishing a list shortly after the election with names of the organizations and individuals with who did and did not respond. Good luck to their fund raising then.
Fr. Frank: Yes, I am surprised at how quickly this movement has been institutionalized. I believe the organizations need to get back to their roots. There needs to be passion in this movement, and the leadership needs to do these things. First, they need to get back to their roots. They need to be praying regularly in front of abortion mills. They need to look at the images and view the videos we use on a regular basis to remind themselves of the mission, and to keep the urgency alive. They especially need to talk to the women who either are going in for abortions, or are post abortive. They need to understand and hear for themselves the pain and agony of these women. There is no greater motivator than that. There needs to be more hands on and way more involvement by the leadership, and yes, there needs to be urgency in this matter.
Last question Fr. Frank. We have requested of all the leadership in the various organizations to do three things: Personally donate to Missy Smith’s campaign, personally endorse her, and pass her information along to their distribution lists. This can be done without violating 501c3 and non profit status as demonstrated by Jack Ames. Will YOU personally commit to doing these same things for Missy Smith?
Fr. Frank: Being mindful of the organization, I can send out a memo with Missy’s information on it and encourage people to look at it and act on the information. I can also put Missy Smith on the voter guide and encourage support for her candidacy in that way. I also can endorse her and give her a ‘plug’ in my communications.
Thank you for your time and I’m sure I will be speaking to you in the near future.
So, we have it on record that Fr. Frank is supporting and endorsing Missy Smith for Congress. This is an unprecedented opportunity, and it is good to have the one who coined the term “America will reject abortion when America sees abortion.” We have a week or so left to make a significant impact on the nation’s capital, and we need to make this happen.
To donate to Missy Smith’s campaign, go to www.missysmith2010.com
I had the opportunity to interview Fr. Frank Pavone last Friday, and this posting will touch on the highlights of this interview. As mentioned before, representatives from Priests for Life reached out to me to do this interview and the timing of this happened to coincide with Missy Smith’s campaign for the congressional seat in Washington, D.C. The interview, originally scheduled for 15 minutes, went 40 minutes, and for the sake of brevity, I had to condense as much as possible without changing the esence of what was said. I had pre determined questions, but due to the nature of the discussion, we went into other aspects of the pro life organizations and the general problems with them. I will write the questions, and then give Fr. Frank’s response.
Does the 501c3 tax exempt status hurt the Churches ability to address politicians and laws?
Fr. Frank: Not if the Church has allowed the organization to do the work. As far as PFL (Priests for Life) is concerned, we have to deal not only with civil law, but Church law. We have the ability to put out non partisan voter guides, but cannot explicitly point out or endorse any specific candidates. However, the Church does need to allow for the full extent of the c3 laws, and in some quadrants, there is some hesitancy to do this. Church teachings often are opposed to the reality of the situation, in that they do not always teach with the conviction that they need to. There can be many reasons for this, but much of it can be attributed to sometimes being out of touch with the common man and his situation. Then there is the larger church culture that seems to imply ‘don’t push this too much”.
You have talked about influencing the 2010 elections, yet you are a 501c3. Is it true that you cannot advocate for the defeat of a candidate by name that supports the murder of babies?
Fr. Frank: I cannot communicate that through the PFL channels. As a private individual, I would be able to do so, but it is a very fine line between identifying my own beliefs as opposed to my association with PFL. There are not only civil laws I must be aware of, but church law since I am a Priest. Traditionally speaking, the church has attempted to stay clear of partisan politics, and discourages priests from doing this activity.
Fr. Frank, you have a great deal of influence and I think it would make a big difference if you did get out there and make a clear statement about Missy Smith’s candidacy, especially given the fact she is showing graphic images, that corresponds with your own statement “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion”.
Fr. Frank: I know Missy Smith very well, and am all for her doing what she is doing. I do believe America needs to see these images and what she (Missy) is doing is very courageous and needs to be supported by the pro life movement. But I want you to know that I use images on my television show and advocate for others to do the same. I think there is a hesitancy to do this with many of the pro life organizations due to various reasons, and there seems to be a significant amount of discomfort with these ads.
Fr Frank, your television show is’ preaching to the choir’. Missy Smith’s ads are going into the ‘belly of the beast’ and are garnering a great deal of ‘hate mail’. Missy informed me that she needs to empty her voice mail at least 2 times per day from all of the hate and vile messages left for her. Her spots are hard hitting and have to be run, unedited on the MSM airwaves. This is unprecedented not only in politics, but in the nation’s capital, and for the first time that I can remember; the pro death camp is on the defensive. Then we have an organization such as the Susan B. Anthony List that is embroiled in a dispute over billboards in Ohio. It is beyond me that many in this ’movement’ cannot distinguish between spending a great deal of money defending billboards that will do little to nothing, versus a fair amount of money in showing the graphic nature of abortion to the nation’s capital, where many of the politicians will have to see it. Talk about not understanding the nature of the battle, or knowing where to spend the money in a very cost effective way. Where is the coverage and support for Missy Smith if we really need to show America what abortion is?
Fr Frank: First, I agree with you. It is unprecedented for the nation’s capital, and needed. However, there seems to be among many in the pro life movement a lack of political savvy, political willfulness. There is also a level of discomfort and even a fear of being explicit with the images used. There have also been debates about how to best deal with the elections and many of the groups have done what they think they need to do with getting candidates elected. Many want to stay out of controversy in order to get many of these candidates into office.
Here’s the problem with that. Most of these so called ‘pro life’ candidates, once elected, don’t follow through on their promises. We have had too many instances in which supposed pro life candidates, once in office, turn on us, such as Lindsay Graham, then get re elected, and are supported by the PRO LIFE ORGANIZATIONS! Then you have people like Steve Ertelt of life news, stating the way to ‘win’ is to get a majority of pro lifers in the legislative and executive branches. Maybe he does not remember, but we had that opportunity with Bush, and it didn’t happen. We had the Sotomayor and Kagan nominations, and virtual silence by nearly all of the pro life movement, and I have this well documented. Many in the ‘pro life movement’ seem to have no clue about this fight, and even when they do identify a source of the front, do little to nothing about it.
Fr. Frank: Accountability is a problem. It seems as time goes on the passion begins to wane. The church moves slow because it is institutionalized and sometimes it takes longer to get things going due to the precedents set….
Sorry to interrupt you, but the Church is 2000 years old, and it’s understandable for institutionalization there, but the pro life movement is 38 years old, and there is really no excuse for it to be institutionalized already.
Fr. Frank: yes, it seems to have happened quickly. Many seemed to have lost touch with the mission of what we need to do.
I’m glad you said that. I’m telling you now, that there will be a great deal of anger by the ‘man on the street’ after this is said and done, after the election. There is no passion, no ‘urgency’ in this movement anymore. Things just plod along. The vast majority of the ‘leadership’ is out of touch with the front line people in this movement. Missy Smith’s ads will get out there after the election, and many of the front line people are going to be furious with much of the leadership because they didn’t inform them of this option, and they took it upon themselves to make decisions for these people. I consider myself a front line pro lifer. I get up on Saturday mornings, regardless of the weather, and stand out at the mills and counsel women. I am sick of doing this, and I want to see this holocaust end. Unfortunately, there are organizations that have huge budgets, nice offices, some of the leaders are well compensated for speeches, and get invited to activities. They would be in ‘existential angst’ if legalized child killing ended tomorrow. Unlike them, I have a career, and pay my bills through those means, and want to see every worthwhile tool used to end this holocaust. Most of the front line people think the way I do, and don’t think these organizations have the ‘right’ to speak for us. These organizations are going to be in trouble once the front line people find out the opportunity was there, but they didn’t pass this on. And by the way, we are documenting who is helping and who is not. And we will be publishing a list shortly after the election with names of the organizations and individuals with who did and did not respond. Good luck to their fund raising then.
Fr. Frank: Yes, I am surprised at how quickly this movement has been institutionalized. I believe the organizations need to get back to their roots. There needs to be passion in this movement, and the leadership needs to do these things. First, they need to get back to their roots. They need to be praying regularly in front of abortion mills. They need to look at the images and view the videos we use on a regular basis to remind themselves of the mission, and to keep the urgency alive. They especially need to talk to the women who either are going in for abortions, or are post abortive. They need to understand and hear for themselves the pain and agony of these women. There is no greater motivator than that. There needs to be more hands on and way more involvement by the leadership, and yes, there needs to be urgency in this matter.
Last question Fr. Frank. We have requested of all the leadership in the various organizations to do three things: Personally donate to Missy Smith’s campaign, personally endorse her, and pass her information along to their distribution lists. This can be done without violating 501c3 and non profit status as demonstrated by Jack Ames. Will YOU personally commit to doing these same things for Missy Smith?
Fr. Frank: Being mindful of the organization, I can send out a memo with Missy’s information on it and encourage people to look at it and act on the information. I can also put Missy Smith on the voter guide and encourage support for her candidacy in that way. I also can endorse her and give her a ‘plug’ in my communications.
Thank you for your time and I’m sure I will be speaking to you in the near future.
So, we have it on record that Fr. Frank is supporting and endorsing Missy Smith for Congress. This is an unprecedented opportunity, and it is good to have the one who coined the term “America will reject abortion when America sees abortion.” We have a week or so left to make a significant impact on the nation’s capital, and we need to make this happen.
To donate to Missy Smith’s campaign, go to www.missysmith2010.com
Friday, October 22, 2010
THE 'VIABILITY' FACTOR
George Offerman
There comes a time when an event occurs that is so unprecedented that it catches many, if not most off guard. This has occurred in the pro life arena with Missy Smith’s candidacy, and ability to access the Washington, D.C. MSM with uncensored, graphic images of legalized child killing that have put the child killing fields on the defensive for maybe the first time ever. Now, when those who are caught off guard react, it will be in one of two ways: 1) they will seize the moment, and run with the opportunity, or 2) they will be gripped by fear and run away from the opportunity. Unfortunately for the vast majority of pro life groups, they have chosen the latter, and the catch phrase being bantered around is the ‘viability’ factor.
This catch phrase has been the excuse for most of these organizations to not get involved, and justify their true intentions, which is to obey their masters and play by the rules set by them from godless sources. We have found over and over again the past two weeks, how these groups have given about every reason and excuse to not get involved in this effort, as they normally cite ‘powers that be’, such as the IRS, 501c3 status, non profit status or whatever nebulous venture they want to blame for their lack of vision and cowardice. The truly large and supposedly influential organizations have thrown out the ‘viability’ factor. This is rather laughable, given the INDISPUTABLE FACT that the majority of ‘pro life’ candidates and elected officials (such as the ‘honorable’ Lindsay Graham) don’t follow through with their promises. So, what passes for ‘viable’ is actually a fleecing of the faithful, and thievery of their money for causes that will bear little fruit.
One of these organizations is the Susan B. Anthony List. The current president, Marjorie Dannenfelser is currently embroiled in a lawsuit out of Ohio over wanting to put up billboards claiming Ohio representative Steve Driehaus voted for taxpayer funded abortion. The billboards were removed by court order, but the SBA List is fighting this, and is likely spending big bucks for this. The billboards ultimately may have had some impact in that particular contest, but the COST/BENEFIT is negligible compared to unvarnished and uncensored pictures of dead babies on the Nation’s capitol airwaves. The SBA list, like so many of the establishment pro life groups, don’t know how to fight this fight anymore. They don’t seem to understand where the most effective arenas are, and thus make poor decisions in allocating their resources. They also don’t seem to have the intestinal fortitude and willing to violate man’s unholy and unjust laws with God’s immutable truths and His laws.
This goes a long way in explaining why there are so few in public office that are willing to make any commitment in keeping to the pro life platform. There is very little recourse against these office holders if they betray the babies. However, the opposite is true for the pro death candidates, if they ‘betrayed’ their constituency. These pro deathers are AFRAID of letting their constituents down, and will tow the line, or be gone. Despite being evil and hopelessly misguided, these forces clearly demonstrate what the word ‘viable’ really means. Unfortunately for the pro lifers, it is a catch phrase, which is used to cover up cowardice and fear.
So, Marjorie, what is the ‘true cost’ of not supporting Missy Smith, or endorsing her for office? Do you really believe the cost of the billboards and for the team of lawyers compares to the mileage the pro life movement will get out of the ads? Or what about the fact that Eleanor Holmes Norton is truly one who supports uncontrolled baby killing? Is that not ‘viable’? Why CAN’T Missy Smith do well in D.C. if the pro lifers really put an effort behind her candidacy? Wouldn’t having Missy Smith’s ads run hundreds of times in the next 10 days or so be ‘viable’ for our movement? Would that not EDUCATE many in the D.C. area on the realities of legalized child killing? It may also have the effect of CHANGING HEARTS as well. Aren’t these aspects most of the pro life groups espouse nowadays? All viable things, indeed.
To donate to Missy Smith’s campaign, go to: www.missysmith2010.com
There comes a time when an event occurs that is so unprecedented that it catches many, if not most off guard. This has occurred in the pro life arena with Missy Smith’s candidacy, and ability to access the Washington, D.C. MSM with uncensored, graphic images of legalized child killing that have put the child killing fields on the defensive for maybe the first time ever. Now, when those who are caught off guard react, it will be in one of two ways: 1) they will seize the moment, and run with the opportunity, or 2) they will be gripped by fear and run away from the opportunity. Unfortunately for the vast majority of pro life groups, they have chosen the latter, and the catch phrase being bantered around is the ‘viability’ factor.
This catch phrase has been the excuse for most of these organizations to not get involved, and justify their true intentions, which is to obey their masters and play by the rules set by them from godless sources. We have found over and over again the past two weeks, how these groups have given about every reason and excuse to not get involved in this effort, as they normally cite ‘powers that be’, such as the IRS, 501c3 status, non profit status or whatever nebulous venture they want to blame for their lack of vision and cowardice. The truly large and supposedly influential organizations have thrown out the ‘viability’ factor. This is rather laughable, given the INDISPUTABLE FACT that the majority of ‘pro life’ candidates and elected officials (such as the ‘honorable’ Lindsay Graham) don’t follow through with their promises. So, what passes for ‘viable’ is actually a fleecing of the faithful, and thievery of their money for causes that will bear little fruit.
One of these organizations is the Susan B. Anthony List. The current president, Marjorie Dannenfelser is currently embroiled in a lawsuit out of Ohio over wanting to put up billboards claiming Ohio representative Steve Driehaus voted for taxpayer funded abortion. The billboards were removed by court order, but the SBA List is fighting this, and is likely spending big bucks for this. The billboards ultimately may have had some impact in that particular contest, but the COST/BENEFIT is negligible compared to unvarnished and uncensored pictures of dead babies on the Nation’s capitol airwaves. The SBA list, like so many of the establishment pro life groups, don’t know how to fight this fight anymore. They don’t seem to understand where the most effective arenas are, and thus make poor decisions in allocating their resources. They also don’t seem to have the intestinal fortitude and willing to violate man’s unholy and unjust laws with God’s immutable truths and His laws.
This goes a long way in explaining why there are so few in public office that are willing to make any commitment in keeping to the pro life platform. There is very little recourse against these office holders if they betray the babies. However, the opposite is true for the pro death candidates, if they ‘betrayed’ their constituency. These pro deathers are AFRAID of letting their constituents down, and will tow the line, or be gone. Despite being evil and hopelessly misguided, these forces clearly demonstrate what the word ‘viable’ really means. Unfortunately for the pro lifers, it is a catch phrase, which is used to cover up cowardice and fear.
So, Marjorie, what is the ‘true cost’ of not supporting Missy Smith, or endorsing her for office? Do you really believe the cost of the billboards and for the team of lawyers compares to the mileage the pro life movement will get out of the ads? Or what about the fact that Eleanor Holmes Norton is truly one who supports uncontrolled baby killing? Is that not ‘viable’? Why CAN’T Missy Smith do well in D.C. if the pro lifers really put an effort behind her candidacy? Wouldn’t having Missy Smith’s ads run hundreds of times in the next 10 days or so be ‘viable’ for our movement? Would that not EDUCATE many in the D.C. area on the realities of legalized child killing? It may also have the effect of CHANGING HEARTS as well. Aren’t these aspects most of the pro life groups espouse nowadays? All viable things, indeed.
To donate to Missy Smith’s campaign, go to: www.missysmith2010.com
Thursday, October 21, 2010
THE ADS ARE DOING THEIR JOB
George Offerman
Missy Smith’s campaign ads ran on the local affiliates of the major networks starting Tuesday, and they have caused a great deal of discomfort among the liberals and child killing population in the nation’s capital. For the first time EVER the truth of legalized child killing is front and center, and all of these ‘pro choicers’ are now getting a naked view of the truth of the matter. And as predicted, they are going after Missy Smith and her ‘tactlessness’ instead of doing a gut check and admitting they are co conspirators in grisly murder that occurs daily and is scheduled.
We normally watch the 5pm WUSA channel 9 news, and it was very interesting how the newscasters had to take time to explain these ads, and how they ‘had no control over content, due to federal law”. They also had to utilize other advertising time to ‘warn viewers of the graphic nature’. Yes, the same network that airs CSI, NCIS and a myriad of other programs that leave no murder and torture scene to the imagination. Anyway, those in the nation’s capital are squirming, and falling all over themselves to ‘stop’ this atrocity. I believe it was Joe Sheidler that stated “Find out what annoys the enemy, and do only that”. These people are truly rattled, and are foaming at the mouth and its fun to watch these people who want to ‘kill’ for the right to choose, yet cannot stand the thought of looking at their handiwork. For once, the forces of evil are on defense, and they don’t know how to handle it.
Several of us have been spending countless hours over the past several days sending out emails and telephoning leaders in many of the pro life organizations. What may or may not be amazing to the stalwarts and front line people in the pro life arena are the excuses and reasons most are NOT getting behind this push to have the commercials shown. Yes, there is a lot of talk amongst many groups that the message needs to get out, but now that it is, many are beginning to show their true colors, with yellow being the dominant one. When all is said and done, we will be putting out a ‘score card’ on the performance of these organizations, and letting their donors know who and what is happening, and seeing firsthand why this war is being lost.
I am again putting out to the pro life organizations to endorse Missy Smith, and to open up and pass along Missy’s site to your distribution lists. The people on your lists are adults, and have the right to make up their own minds concerning this matter, and will not donate if they don’t want to get involved. But that decision needs to be theirs. This is a very straight forward request and not difficult to do. It will require most to step outside of their comfort zones, but it is a small price to pay to finally have this issue in the open at the right time and the right place.
So, as the clock ticks, the sheep and goats are separating themselves in this movement. We will see who the real players are soon enough as this ‘once in 38 year’ opportunity winds down, and those who state they are shackled by laws and other matters, then fund raise for future races and will want to fight for efforts that garner little attention and change few hearts. We will then know who is really on board, and ultimately, know who to fund and who to work with from now on.
Missy Smith’s campaign ads ran on the local affiliates of the major networks starting Tuesday, and they have caused a great deal of discomfort among the liberals and child killing population in the nation’s capital. For the first time EVER the truth of legalized child killing is front and center, and all of these ‘pro choicers’ are now getting a naked view of the truth of the matter. And as predicted, they are going after Missy Smith and her ‘tactlessness’ instead of doing a gut check and admitting they are co conspirators in grisly murder that occurs daily and is scheduled.
We normally watch the 5pm WUSA channel 9 news, and it was very interesting how the newscasters had to take time to explain these ads, and how they ‘had no control over content, due to federal law”. They also had to utilize other advertising time to ‘warn viewers of the graphic nature’. Yes, the same network that airs CSI, NCIS and a myriad of other programs that leave no murder and torture scene to the imagination. Anyway, those in the nation’s capital are squirming, and falling all over themselves to ‘stop’ this atrocity. I believe it was Joe Sheidler that stated “Find out what annoys the enemy, and do only that”. These people are truly rattled, and are foaming at the mouth and its fun to watch these people who want to ‘kill’ for the right to choose, yet cannot stand the thought of looking at their handiwork. For once, the forces of evil are on defense, and they don’t know how to handle it.
Several of us have been spending countless hours over the past several days sending out emails and telephoning leaders in many of the pro life organizations. What may or may not be amazing to the stalwarts and front line people in the pro life arena are the excuses and reasons most are NOT getting behind this push to have the commercials shown. Yes, there is a lot of talk amongst many groups that the message needs to get out, but now that it is, many are beginning to show their true colors, with yellow being the dominant one. When all is said and done, we will be putting out a ‘score card’ on the performance of these organizations, and letting their donors know who and what is happening, and seeing firsthand why this war is being lost.
I am again putting out to the pro life organizations to endorse Missy Smith, and to open up and pass along Missy’s site to your distribution lists. The people on your lists are adults, and have the right to make up their own minds concerning this matter, and will not donate if they don’t want to get involved. But that decision needs to be theirs. This is a very straight forward request and not difficult to do. It will require most to step outside of their comfort zones, but it is a small price to pay to finally have this issue in the open at the right time and the right place.
So, as the clock ticks, the sheep and goats are separating themselves in this movement. We will see who the real players are soon enough as this ‘once in 38 year’ opportunity winds down, and those who state they are shackled by laws and other matters, then fund raise for future races and will want to fight for efforts that garner little attention and change few hearts. We will then know who is really on board, and ultimately, know who to fund and who to work with from now on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)